Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

Schedule

Standing Order 1, line 86, at end insert:
'Where under Standing Orders 48 to 59 a length or distance is required to be stated, marked or described in Imperial measurements it may be stated, marked or described in metric measurements instead of Imperial measurements, in the case of measurements in miles, furlongs, chains or yards, to the nearest equivalent expressed in whole metres and, in the case of measurements in feet and inches or decimal parts of a foot, to the nearest equivalent expressed in metres (taken, where necessary, to two decimal places of a metre); and for the purposes of Standing Orders 50(1) and 52(4) distances from one of the termini of a railway, tramroad or tramway (as the case may be) may be marked at intervals of two hundred metres'.

Standing Order 31, line 2, leave out 'line of high water at ordinary spring tides' and insert 'level of mean high water springs'.

The first Amendment will give promoters of Private Bills the option of using metric measurements instead of imperial measurements in the plans, books of reference and other documents which they are required to deposit with certain Bills. I understand that many large engineering firms now work on a metric basis.

The second Amendment will remove the doubt about the exact meaning of the words "ordinary spring tides". The revised form brings the Standing Order into line with the definition used in the Admiralty tide tables. It has the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Motion debatable? If

anyone wants to object to it, can it be stopped by saying "Object", or should the House be divided?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask a question. He is not entitled to oppose the Motion at this stage. If he wishes to oppose it, it must be postponed for further consideration.

Mr. Maude: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Objection taken.

LANGSTONE FISHERMEN (PETITION)

Mr. Pink: I beg leave to present a Petition on behalf of the fishermen of Langstone and district, signed by 33 people.

The petitioners pray
That your Honourable House do retain the Fishery Limits Act of 1964 for an unlimited period and that your Honourable House establishes an adequate naval patrol system competent to protect all areas under their control and supervision and urges your Honourable House to call for an immediate inquiry on these matters.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

British Railways (Crowd Control)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a general direction to the Railways Board to improve the standard of crowd control on British Railways stations when large numbers of people are travelling to football matches and other similar functions.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): No, Sir.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Saturday, 27th May, in the Central Station, Glasgow, the measures taken to control the long queue of people waiting to catch trains to Mount Florida Station to watch the football international between Scotland and England were totally inadequate, and that it is a miracle that no one was seriously hurt?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has been good enough to call my attention to the


circumstances on the day in question. British Rail is also aware of what happened. It is reviewing its arrangements. I think it would be possible to exaggerate the danger on this occasion.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was great success in the past football season in controlling hooliganism inside football grounds? One of the results is that hooliganism outside the grounds has got worse, particularly on British Rail. I and other hon. Members have been told of a large number of instances of uncontrolled hooliganism in restaurant cars and other places, which can be very frightening for ordinary, innoncent passengers. Will the right hon. Gentleman please communicate with the British Rail police to see that the good that has been achieved inside grounds is not lost outside and on Britaish Rail?

Mr. Peyton: Most certainly. Nobody—neither I nor British Rail—would wish to challenge what the hon. Gentleman said.

Housing (Compulsory Purchase)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will advise local authorities to use compulsory purchase powers when it appears that a large number of houses within their area, which have hitherto been let to tenants with low incomes, are being or are about to be converted to luxury accommodation.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): No, Sir. This is a matter for the judgment of the local authorities.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a dismally insensitive answer, which reflects the indifference of his Government to the suffering caused to individuals, families, and communities by the exploitation of properties for commercial greed? Will he not reconsider the matter and accept the recommendations even of the Conservative Kensington and Chelsea Council to give increased compulsory purchase powers where families are being harassed with a view to their eviction, because the provisions of the Act are not sufficiently effective to prevent harassment? Will he take greater powers to

use compulsory purchase powers in those circumstances?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that we have taken increased powers to prosecute harassment and that tenants in regulated or controlled tenancies have security of tenure. I should have thought that that covers the point the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he takes into account in assessing requests by local authorities for his approval of compulsory purchase orders of land for public housing.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Generally, the authority's need for more housing land, the suitability of the proposed site and any objections to the compulsory purchase order, but each case must be considered on its merits.

Mr. Tebbit: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report on the Sheffield Council waiting list commissioned by the Housing Research Foundation and carried out by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham? Will he take this sort of survey into account as well, because that survey showed that some 42 per cent. of the people whose names appeared on the general waiting list could not be traced, and that well over half of the people on the waiting list wanted to own their homes, yet in Sheffield fewer and fewer houses are being built for ownership and more and more for municipal letting.

Mr. Page: I have said that one of the factors is an authority's need for more housing land, and proof of need would not be discharged merely by producing a housing waiting list. We should consider any other factors, such as those my hon. Friend mentioned, in seeing whether there was a need for housing.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many of the people in Sheffield wish to buy houses in my constituency but that unfortunately the rate of increase in house prices is such that many thousands of them are being bitterly disappointed?

Mr. Page: The Government's objective is to increase the supply of housing in order to push the prices down.

Building Regulations

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when it is his intention to modernise and rationalise the Building Regulations into a more simplified and national application.

Mr. Amery: The Government accept the need for changes in the law relating to building regulations in England and Wales.
I shall shortly be consulting a wide range of interested bodies with a view to enabling the system of control to be improved and rationalised as soon as practicable.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he go a little further and say that there is a need for a new National Building Act which will embrace all the laws and regulations, that in the public interest this should be as simple and as easily understood as possible, and that in the interests of fairness it should not be capable of being interpreted differently by different building inspectors?

Mr. Amery: That is the Government's intention. It is not possible to change the existing position without legislation, and we shall try to make the necessary legislation as simple as we can.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unimaginative insistence on the letter of the present building regulations has done serious damage to a number of listed buildings in various parts of the country? Will he confirm that planning authorities now have the power to waive the regulations as they apply to listed buildings? Will he give particular attention to this problem when revising the regulations?

Mr. Amery: I shall have my hon. Friend's point very much in mind.

Highways (Marking)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the reason for the multiplication of wiggly and other white lines on Her Majesty's Highway; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: To improve safety, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure about this? Does not this multiplication add up to distraction? Is he satisfied that all this expenditure and unsightliness will contribute to an increase in road safety? Does he think that the public understand all this?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I am absolutely satisfied that this can make a very useful contribution. The purpose of the lines—to which I am sure that public will get used; they have already been widely publicised—is, first, to draw attention to the crossing itself and, second, to mark an area in which waiting and parking, and, from the approach direction, passing, are prohibited.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister resist the blandishments of his wiggly hon. Friend and encourage local authorities to do more in the marking of junctions with white lines?

Mr. Peyton: I shall always find the blandishments of my hon. Friend very difficult to resist.

Sir E. Bullus: Will my right hon. Friend introduce a few wiggly lines into New Palace Yard?

Mr. Peyton: New Palace Yard and the immediate environment of where we now are is the last place that is in need of wiggly lines.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce safeguards to prevent exploitation of the Government grants for improving old houses and flats for profit-making purposes, including a condition that such properties should not be sold within three years of improvement without specific approval by the local authority.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. It is for the local authority to decide whether or not to make a discretionary grant in any particular case.

Mr. Allaun: But what steps will the Government take to help? Surely the Minister is aware that speculators are buying up old properties, hustling out the tenants, applying for grants, receiving up to £4,500 for converting an old house into three flats, and then selling them


for a very large profit? Surely this is wrong and can be prevented.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will remember that his noble Friend, Lord Greenwood, when he was Minister for Housing, removed the restriction on the approval of grants by local authorities. We do it for the same reason. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about speculators. My anxiety is concentrated on the fact that 2·3 million people in this country still live in substandard houses, and I do not want to do anything which will slow up the improvement of these homes.

Mr. Allason: What is the difference to the public purse between someone improving a house and then selling it andhis selling it as it stands and the purchaser then improving it?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend has a good point. There is very little difference. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gets his whack of all the proceeds.

Mr. Leonard: Will not the Minister at least give some guidance to local authorities in this respect? Has he taken account of a recent article in the Housing Review which gave specific examples of speculators making very substantial profits, which are approximately equal to the size of the improvement grant, and which suggests that a large number of people have been uprooted as a result of these operations and have added to the problem of homelessness, about which we have heard?

Mr. Amery: Where discretionary grants are concerned, local authorities have complete discretion whether to give the grants. Where the standard grant is concerned, they have to give it, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to prevent the installation of a bathroom or indoor sanitation in any houses. Surely the situation as it stands today is in no way unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman will remember that if there is any question of compulsory purchase, the Department of the Environment might well have to adopt a judicial position in this and to decide for or against an appeal. It may well be unwise to give guidance to authorities, which in any case might involve them in very heavy expenditure.

Mr. Freeson: Is not the Minister missing the whole central point of the questions? Is he not aware that they are not directed to reducing the rate of improvement of the bricks and mortar but to the question of the displacement of increasing numbers of moderate-income families from these areas as a result of the purchase of these properties for conversion and sale as business propositions? Is not there a study taking place in the Department on this matter? If the Minister can confirm that, why has he not mentioned it to the House? Will he take it from the Opposition that we believe it right that local authorities should be encouraged to move into this area of property dealing to carry out the conversions and improvements themselves and to let at reasonable rents?

Mr. Amery: I am very reluctant to advise local authorities to embark on the very heavy expenditure which compulsory purchase orders might put upon them. We are studying the matter; we should be irresponsible not to do so. But I have nothing like enough information to put before the House about my conclusions on the study. As of now, no information has been put before us to suggest that there is any substantial number of people deprived of good accommodation as a result of improvements. All the information we have points the other way.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will establish an inquiry into the proportion of improvement grants going to owner-occupiers and the proportion going to property companies.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The numbers of grants approved to owner-occupiers and landlords respectively are already known. No useful purpose would be served by attempting any further subdivision.

Mr. Judd: Does the Minister agree that it was never the intention of any of those concerned with this enlightened legislation to swell the profits of property companies at the taxpayers' expense? He says that he is concerned with answering housing need, but is he not troubled by the evidence of an increasing tendency to displace existing occupiers so that profits can be facilitated


for property companies? Does not the Minister think that an inquiry at this juncture would be helpful, particularly when there are genuine owner-occupiers who are not getting discretionary grants and who feel particularly frustrated?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misunderstanding. No tenant in a controlled or regulated tenancy can be evicted. The penalties against harassment have been sharply increased. There are very few tenants living in unregulated tenancies where improvement grants would be applicable.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that it is not property dealers who occupy flats but tenants? To deprive the tenant of his bath in order to annoy a particular kind of landlord whom the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) does not like would be a singularly inept procedure.

Mr. Amery: Clearly it is essential to improve the housing stock and the housing conditions. I repeat that no controlled or regulated tenant can be evicted under the present law and that there are very few cases where improvement grants can be applied to unregulated tenancies.

Mr. Stallard: We have tried so many times to enlighten the Minister on this matter that I am almost sick of trying. Does he accept that all over inner London people are being evicted, harassed, bought out and pushed out of controlled and regulated tenancies by speculators making big, fat profits out of the improvement grant scheme? Will the Minister accept that, or do I have to invite him to the London borough of Camden where I can show him evidence of it?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in my present job I am in close contact with the leaders of the London boroughs, including the London borough of Camden. They have not put before me massive evidence of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Crosland: If the Minister seriously means that he has no evidence of people being, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) says, pushed out, shoved out, harassed, occasionally evicted in inner London, he must be totally out of contact with reality. Will he come with me

to any housing authority in London? Let him come with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and myself to the Colville area of Kensington where in the last few months hundreds of families, in consequence of improvement grants, have been pushed out of their present accommodation for the sake of developers' profits.

Mr. Amery: It remains an interesting point that none of these councils, most of which are of the persuasion of the Labour Party, has made representations to me about individual cases and I do not as yet know of any cases of homelessness—there may well be some, of course—or of anyone moving to inferior accommodation as a result of this.

Land Sales

Mr. H. Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now introduce legislation to eliminate middle men from transactions concerning land with development prospects.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir.

Mr. Boardman: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to last Friday's edition of The Guardianwhich reported that a piece of land in Manchester was sold for £36,000, resold for £64,000, then put up for auction and withdrawn at £98,000, and then sold for over £100,000, all within a period of seven months? Is not the Minister aware that people who have no direct interest in land prices are becoming angered at the Government's refusal to stop this criminal exploitation of land scarcity?

Mr. Page: I do not have the facts of the case which the hon. Gentleman mentions. But it is true that often the middle man, as the hon. Gentleman calls him, plays a useful purpose in the assembling of land for development.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is it not becoming increasingly clear day by day that the Government's doctrinaire decision to abolish the Land Commission has been a disaster? However, as that happened, and in view of the facts outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. H. Boardman), is it not increasingly clear with every day that passes that the only way to control this problem is to have


complete public ownership of all development land?

Mr. Page: I do not think that the public would appreciate a return to the Land Commission. I notice that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. RoyJenkins) has announced the Opposition's policy in this respect in the last few days, saying that
the cornerstone of our policy must be acquisition rather than taxation.
The cornerstone of the Government's policy is to get the houses built.

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify the developments at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment which have provided an opportunity for better co-ordination of international programmes of work on environmental problems.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The Conference recommended new machinery to co-ordinate the activities of the many inter-governmental, non-governmental and United Nations agencies operating in the environmental field. This machinery will comprise a Governing Council for Environmental programmes supported by a Co-ordinating Board and a small secretariat.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I know that the contribution of the United Kingdom delegation to the Stockholm Conference was widely acclaimed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind—and I should be glad to have an assurance to this effect—that we should not have a proliferation of international bodies dealing with environmental questions.

Mr. Walker: I have said that one of the difficulties in my Department has been that there have been so many international bodies that many of the ablest members of my staff have been fully employed in going from one conference to another. This is bad. A rationalisation is to take place.

Durrington Walls

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he was consulted by the owner of Durrington Walls before the deep ploughing of the prehistoric site.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I was given no notice of the recent work, but I am assured by the owners that it was not deep ploughing but rotavation intended to prepare the land for grazing.

Mr. Dalyell: I have some sympathy with the chagrin of the Ancient Monuments Department in this matter. What is to be done to prevent a recurrence of this position?

Mr. Eyre: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. This very important prehistoric monument is under a preservation order. I am carefully investigating all the circumstances. Until these inquiries have been completed, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot say any more.

Motor Cyclists (Compensation)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many claims for compensation his Department have now had arising out of the minimum age for motor cyclists being increased; and how many of these have been paid.

Mr. Peyton: Four hundred and forty-three claims have been received. I hope that all can be settled very soon.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a colossal piece of incompetence that out of 433 cases of compensation none has been settled in the nine months since the Minister admitted his Department's incompetence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I reported this matter to the Ombudsman and that I have had a letter from the Ombudsman today saying that he is to make an investigation? Why is it that after 433 people have had to suffer damage because of the Department's incompetence, hardly any of them have been paid their compensation?

Mr. Peyton: Because each one of these cases needed to be investigated carefully and thoroughly. Every effort has been


made by my Department to meet these claims, and they will be settled soon. The hon. Gentleman talks in a rather big way about monumental incompetence as if he were very familiar with it.

Mr. Mulley: Did not the unfortunate timing of these regulations, whatever their merits, just before Christmas and without notice, maximise the inconvenience to those concerned and maximise the cost to the Treasury? Will the Minister consider this with a view to trying to time any future changes in a more convenient way?

Mr. Peyton: Certainly. I greatly regret the inconvenience to the individuals concerned and I have never attempted to deny it. What happened was that local councils, even though they were on notice that this regulation was being introduced, continued their previous practice of issuing licences in advance. On the strength of those licences people bought motor cycles and so on. I repeat that I am sorry for the inconvenience which was caused.

Child Pedestrians (Casualties)

Mr. Roger White: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce casualties among child pedestrians; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: The Green Cross Code had made and continues to make a valuable contribution.

Mr. White: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The number of child casualties in the first quarter of 1972 remained almost unchanged compared with the same period of 1971, which was a particularly high figure. In view of this, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the Green Cross Code?

Mr. Peyton: Yes. A further campaign is planned for this year. Last year £500,000 was spent on publicising the Green Cross Code. This year it is planned to spend £750,000. From May of last year, which was when the Code was introduced, to the end of the year 2,000 fewer children were killed or injured on the roads than in the previous years.

Mr. William Price: Does the Minister's Department do any research into what percentge of child casualties is the result of excessive speed by motorists?

Mr. Peyton: It is difficult to do very detailed research. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this desperate matter is taken very seriously.

Pollution

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial help is given by his Department to firms which install special equipment to prevent pollution of air or water by their processes.

Mr. Peter Walker: Such equipment qualifies for the usual assistance and incentives available to firms for capital investment.

Mr. Mallalieu: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the funds available at present are sufficient? Has he in mind that the expense of putting in equipment to deal with pollution is very high, sometimes as much as a third of the full capital cost, and that this affects a firm's competitive position against rivals in other countries who are not so concerned about pollution?

Mr. Walker: I realise that that is an aspect of the matter. On the other hand, I feel that it is the duty of those who want to carry out a manufacturing process which pollutes either rivers or the air to pay the cost of clearing up the pollution, rather than that the taxpayer should do it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my right hon. Friend take it that going ahead at a reasonable pace in the way he described, on this problem of the pollution of water, is a better scheme than rushing headlong into the introduction of regional water authorities, which certainly cannot be accepted by local authorities within the next year?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I consider it vital to organise our river systems on the basis of a complete water cycle. It will be in the interest of diminishing costs of both water extraction and of cleaning up the rivers to have matters organised on a river system basis.

Hackney

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Sec retary of State for the Environment what plans he has for making an official visit to Hackney.

Mr. Peter Walker: None, Sir, at present.

Mr. Davis: What a disappointment. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he would have had a pretty hot welcome from my constituents, especially in the light of the sort of nonsense which has been spoken by the Minister for Housing and Construction today? Is he aware that there are about 10,000 families on the housing waiting list in Hackney and that people are living in the most appalling conditions? If the Hackney Council were to take his advice—which, I am pleased to say, it will not—and to embark upon the sale of council houses, would it not totally adbicate its responsibilities towards those who are suffering the present tragic conditions?

Mr. Walker: Rather than a hot welcome, I should, I believe, receive a warm welcome for the 75 per cent. slum clearance subsidy which the Government have introduced.

London Borough Councils (Financial Loss Allowance)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to review the attendance allowance paid to members of London borough councils.

Mr. Peyton: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the financial loss allowance. Therates were increased from 24th January last.

Mr. Cox: That is a disappointing reply. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the vast amount of time which local councillors have to give. Does he not acknowledge that the allowance which they receive is meagre, that there is no secretarial help and no help with postage, and that, because of this, many able people leave local government? Will he look at the matter again urgently and bring the allowances up to a more realistic figure?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman refers to attendance allowances. These are being dealt with. Provision for them is contained in the Local Government Bill now before Parliament.

House Prices

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the proportion by which house prices increased in the last 18 months, and the amount by which house prices increased more than that of the cost of labour and building materials in the same period.

Mr. Eyre: Between the fourth quarter of 1970 and the second quarter of 1972, average new house prices are provisionally estimated to have risen by 34 per cent. House prices are made up of a complex of factors such as land prices, overheads and margins, quite apart from the cost of labour and building materials, and the amount of different elements will vary in differing circumstances and locations. It would be misleading to try to quantify them.

Mr. Hardy: Is not the rate of increase in the price of houses 50 per cent. greater than the rate of increase in the cost of labour and materials, and is it not, therefore, reasonable to conclude that this explains to a great extent why so many young couples—the majority of them—cannot now afford to purchase their own homes, whether in Epping or in South Yorkshire? Is it not a scandalous situation?

Mr. Eyre: The Government are determined to encourage the rising output of the private sector to deal with this problem. Young people are holding their own in these circumstances. In the first quarter of this year, 24 per cent. of all mortgages went to people earning not more than £30 a week, and the proportion of borrowers under 25 rose from 20·5 per cent. in the last quarter of 1971 to 22 per cent. this year.

Mr. Tebbit: Can my hon. Friend confirm that over a good many years the rise in house prices has been about in line with the rise in wages, and that the price of houses is governed not so much by the cost of building in the new house market as by the price which can be obtained by the sale of second-hand


houses, this being a function of wages and of the availability of credit?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend has mentioned one of the substantial factors in relation to the rise in prices. I am glad to say that, thanks to the greater flexibility in the option mortgage scheme, the proportion of new option mortgages to all mortgages is rising.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that the facts stated by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) are correct to the extent that, over many years the rise in house prices was closely related to the rise in wages and materials but in the 12 months following publication of the White Paper in June, 1971 and publication of the Housing Finance Bill later, there was a rise of 31 per cent. in house prices but a rise in costs, based on the first six months, at the rate of only 4 per cent. per annum? Will the hon. Gentleman consider the figures which I gave in the debate last night and accept that the Housing Finance Bill is the major factor contributing to the astronomical rise in house prices?

Mr. Eyre: There is no foundation whatever for that suggestion.

House Building (Profit Margins)

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing legislation to control profit margins in the house building industry.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Mr. Lamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a house costing £16,000 the various elements are: labour and materials £8,000, cost of land £5,000; and the builders are in the habit of adding to these two costs almost 25 per cent., that is, £3,000, bringing the cost of the house up to £16,000? That 25 per cent. profit is not a reasonable profit but is calculated on the basis of the maximum exploitation which can be had of the poor young couples who are trying to buy their homes. Is it not time that the Government took a grip of some of these things?

Mr. Amery: I must in honesty tell the House that the losses suffered by the

building industry, and the number of bankruptcies incurred, in the last three years of the previous Government show that, even if I believed in statutory control of profits, I should not be justified in introducing it at this stage. Indeed, I have to say that, although the increase in house building has been quite dramatic since we came into office, the reason it has not been better is the damage inflicted on the industry by the Labour Party.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Question is misdirected and does not go to the important element of the problem, since much the more important aspect of it—certainly in the South East—is that there is disturbing evidence to suggest that the number of planning permissions given greatly exceeds the number of housing starts and completions? Is it not of the utmost importance to ensure that planning permissions given are acted upon and that strong measures are taken against those who, so it seems from the evidence at present available, are hoarding permissions to some extent?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend will realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been taking active steps to streamline and increase the speed of planning permissions and to tighten them up. This will help to produce the result at which we allaim. It is worth remembering in this connection that the previous Government never thought it possible to regulate dividends in the housing company world because of the complexity of the market.

Mr. Paget: That is not the point. Will the Minister do something to prevent the hoarding of planning permissions which is going on because, having got a planning permission, if one delays using it one makes a large capital profit? That is the evil which we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to tackle.

Mr. Amery: All the evidence available to us suggests that, in the present state of the market, builders want to use their land as fast as they can. Our real problem is that there is a shortage of land, and my right hon. Friend has been taking steps to make sure that more land becomes available to developers in the immediate future.

Mr. Allason: Did my right hon. Friend notice from a recent independent survey made by a firm employed by the National House-Builders' Registration Council which considered this problem in Hertfordshire that 238 acres of land were being withheld from the market and that just on 200 of them were in the possession of local authorities?

Mr. Amery: I observed that it gave Hertfordshire a better bill than some other parts of the country, but I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware of a report just produced in that part of the country suffering the greatest pressure, the South East, by the Technical Panel of the Standing Conference on regional planning in London and the South-East which clearly shows that the main problem is failure to take up planning potential of land already made available by planning authorities and that of 120,000 potential planning permissions for dwellings only 95,000 have been taken up?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman seems to be straying rather wide of the Question, which asked whether I would limit the profits of the building industry.

Parking Fines

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to increase the percentage of the parking fine imposed by traffic wardens which is at present retained by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: Parking fines and fixed penalties are in general paid into the Exchequer. I understand that in Scotland only there is a negotiated agreement whereby local authorities retain a part of fixed penalties.

Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland under the negotiated agreement local authorities retain only 2½p in each £ of the parking fine and that, as in England and Wales, local authorities, which are responsible for maintaining traffic wardens and all the other ancillary matters, are finding it very difficult to provide these services on the very limited resources available?

Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that those responsible will note what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that the share which local authorities in Scotland are permitted to retain under this arrangement is fixed by the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer—a gentleman over whom I have little control.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister be completely candid and say whether he shares my opinion that far too few wardens are engaged on the important task of curbing illegal parking by the monster of the cities—the motor car? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question on this matter some months ago and his figures showed that in the place where I live, Merton, and the place where I work, Hull, and many other cities there were far too few wardens and that, in fact, the number officially allowed were not employed? Will he look into this matter with local authorities?

Mr. Peyton: I will always endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman straight answers. I am very conscious of this difficult problem. The difficulty of enforcement of the parking meter system is increasing. I have recently been considering the matter very carefully and I hope that we shall be able to make some suggestions in the near future.

New Communities

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will encourage the creation of new villages as well as new towns.

Mr. Amery: I welcome initiatives for the development of new communities large and small, though each case must be considered on its merits and in the general planning context.

Mr. King: Are not we stuffing too many workers into high-rise flats where they tend to live like battery hens, while people who want to live in the countryside cannot get a planning consent anywhere? Is it not a fact that, while preserving a green belt and agricultural land, tens of thousands of acres could still be made available to provide an infinitely improved environment in which people—admittedly a minority—desire to live? Will my right hon. Friend try to help?

Mr. Amery: I have very great sympathy with my hon. Friend's view,


which I know is not new; he has pursued it over a number of years. If any proposals are brought forward, I shall make it my business to ensure that they are given sympathetic consideration.

Maplin Airport

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with progress to date on the Maplin Airport project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir. I hope to make a fuller statement before the House rises.

Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of concern in the private sector and in industry generally that they are being virtually excluded from the planning stage? Is he also aware that there is a good deal of experience and knowledge on this project which is being wasted? How does he think we shall realise the export potential from the design of this airport—which is very considerable, as the French have already shown—unless there is a full and comprehensive partnership with industry?

Mr. Walker: I have made it clear in the past that we should organise the development of the airport in the public sector. That is still my belief.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings)was a leading member of the Cublington lobby and his solicitude for the development of Maplin may not be entirely disinterested. [HON. Members: "Withdraw."] Will the Minister assure the House that when he makes his statement—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has made some kind of accusation against me. My Question was entirely disinterested. I want to see the airport succeed. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. Crosland: I should have thought that my meaning was patently clear. I said that the hon. Gentleman was a leading member of the Cublington lobby which was determined that the airport should be at Foulness regardless of what the people of Foulness thought. Therefore, his solicitude for Foulness is not disinterested. Will the Secretary of State

assure us that, when he makes his statement, he will have taken the fullest account of all the representations made to him by the local authorities concerned, both generally and in particular, about the alignment of the first runway?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Sir S. McAdden: While appreciating the touchiness of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who represents the Cublington area, may I say that I am interested in ensuring that the minimum inconvenience is caused to my constituents? May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that environmental considerations will predominate over all other considerations, including finance, in the case of Maplin as they did in the case of Cublington?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Motorways (Vehicle Noise Check Points)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set up vehicle noise check points on motorways and other main arterial roads.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Roadside checks on vehicle noise are not easily carried out for technical reasons. I am now considering recommendations made by a working group of the Noise Advisory Council.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: While I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, may I point out that there is a pressing need to control vehicle noise in towns and cities and that the present regulations, which require so much space for the installation of noise meters, mean that those metters are virtually uninstallable? Will he therefore consider the American system which uses noise checks on motorways?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that the present regulations are not satisfactory. Nor is the equipment, and, following the report of the Noise Advisory Council, we shall gladly consider any equipment likely to improve matters.

Property Development (Licensing)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he


will introduce legislation to set up a system of licensing for property development in urban areas.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. Property development requires planning permission, and in London and the South East any application for offices in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. also requires an office development permit.

Mr. Cordle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a licensing system would prevent the scandalous misuse of waste land and rich men's follies like Centre Point?

Mr. Walker: The Government have made £80 million available to local authorities for the purchase of land for development and they have stated that in areas where the proper development of land is held up they will consider the issue of compulsory purchase orders. I have already announced that unless the problem of empty office blocks is solved within the next few months legislation will be introduced.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that, much as we deplore the crime of Centre Point, we are sick and tired of hon. Members on both sides of the House using Mr. Harry Hyams as a scapegoat for what is a general problem? It is not simply a problem of a couple of buildings which are in themselves a major scandal. Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to deal with the question of property speculation? If he needs any more information, I advise him to look at the centre spread of Private Eye today.

Mr. Walker: Any proposals I make and any legislation I introduce in connection with office development will apply not simply to one company or individual but to everybody.

Mr. Jay: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will be sympathetic to applications for CPOs from local authorities in the case of unused buildings, whether Centre Point or others?

Mr. Walker: I said quite clearly in my original statement on the problem of the availability of land for housing that I would sympathetically consider any application from local authorities.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to make a statement on the Channel Tunnel feasibility report before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a further statement on the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions about the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Peyton: Negotiations are continuing. I will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that 100 years have elapsed since this was first thought of, that present proposals have been considered for 12 years, and that development is still being held up and awaiting decision? Does he appreciate that the gestation of this tunnel is greater than that of the proverbial elephant? May we have an assurance that he is holding it up to make certain that we do not get a white elephant?

Mr. Peyton: I am not responsible for the gestation period of tunnels. Perhaps I can remind my hon. Friend of the fact that my responsibility in this matter has been for two years, a comparatively modest period compared with the 100 years to which he referred.

Mr. Adley: Did my right hon. Friend see the pictures yesterday of the advanced passenger train emerging from Derby, and is he aware that many people consider that the advanced passenger train and the tunnel combined are a far better investment than Foulness Airport? Is he also aware of the congestion caused by the old-fashioned ferry services from Dover last weekend? Will he lend his great enthusiasm to doing as much as he possibly can to get the tunnel under way as quickly as possible?

Mr. Peyton: I am doing my best to see that this important project receives the detailed and careful examination which it warrants in order that the promise which it undoubtedly holds out


can be fully exploited if the difficulties and costs are not too great.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed his consultations with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the provision of accommodation for that Department which is more consistent with the requirements of modern business practice; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: Consultations with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and other Departments—are continuing.

Mr. Blaker: However much one may admire the appearance of the present building, is my right hon. Friend bearing in mind that it is a quarter of a century since it was unanimously declared obsolete as a place for people to work in, and that it is eight years since the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then the Minister of Works, said that it was an unsuitable building for its present purposes?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend has put down, I think, half a dozen Questions to me on this subject, and I am grateful to him for looking in on our proceedings today so that I can make a supplementary reply to his queries. I will give the most careful consideration to the arguments for and against rebuilding the old public offices. There are questions both of environment and of practicability to be considered.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not this a matter for the Lord President's remembrancer?

Mr. Amery: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's question to the Lord President.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend look, among other considerations, at the number of staff employed at the Foreign Office in 1914, when we were a great Power, and the number employed today when it is about 18 times as many? Will he see whether they can work a bit harder in their present accommodation?

Mr. Amery: I venture to submit that that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mosborough Expressway

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of his Department's failure adequately to publicise the public inquiry into the proposed Mosborough expressway, he will review his Department's methods of publicising such inquiries.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The Department gave six weeks' notice of the public inquiry by means of advertisements in the Press and the placing of notices on the land. This appears to be quite adequate.

Mr. Duffy: In view of the enormous and often adverse effects which his Department's decisions have on the quality of life of individual citizens today, is the Minister satisfied that the present arrangements for publicising those decisions and of providing for opportunities to make objections to them are sufficient to have full impact on those most affected, given the complexities of life today? For example, in addition to advertisements in the local Press why did he not take time on Yorkshire Television?

Mr. Speed: My right hon. Friend has it in mind where there are very large schemes with major impact, to enable further publicity to be given, so as perhaps to exceed the statutory requirements for publicity. As to television, I think that is a separate point. It has not been considered in the past, but the local Press and the London Gazette carried a very considerable number of advertisements on this scheme. Six weeks' notice seemed quite adequate.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that I do not read the London Gazette but that I live only 200 yards away from the expressway? Instead of just having notices stuck on trees, why could not we have had letters sent to our homes?

Mr. Speed: I do not know at which trees the hon. Member was looking. The Sheffield Star and the Sheffield Morning Telegraph which, presumably, the hon. Member does read, carried a number of advertisements about this.

Housing Subsidies

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment


whether he will seek powers to restore subsidies for municipal housing in areas in which the housing list includes persons representing more than 5 per cent. of residents in the area concerned.

Mr. Amery: The new subsidies under the Housing Finance Bill will meet about 75 per cent. of the deficits in the housing revenue account of those authorities which build to meet the housing needs of their area.

Mr. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in areas such as Leicester, where over 8 per cent. of the population are included in the housing list, permanent and powerful help should be given to help the municipality to build homes for the people who are less well off, particularly the old, the young married couples and the disabled?

Mr. Amery: Yes, I would entirely agree, but I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that under the new Bill local authorities concerned no longer have to put up rents to meet deficits resulting from new building and that the liability for the ratepayers is limited to 25 per cent. of any deficit which may be incurred—in many cases it will not be incurred—as a result of new building.

Mr. Tebbit: May I ask my right hon. Friend—the Minister for Housing and Construction this time—when he is considering these matters to satisfy himself as to the genuineness of these lists in view of the Sheffield survey?

Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Have the Government dropped their declared intention to reduce by up to £200 million a year the subsidies which would have been paid by 1975 under the present system?

Mr. Amery: I do not see how that supplementary question arises from the main Question.

Motorways (Central Barriers)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in erecting central barriers on motorways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Speed: The rate of progress is being well maintained within the practical programme announced in August,

1970. I expect that 940 miles of motorway will be equipped with safety barriers by March, 1974.

Mr. Dormand: May I remind the Minister that the appalling figure of 7,696 killed in 1971 was 2·5 per cent. higher than the figure in 1970 and that most of that increase occurred in non-built-up areas? Will he confirm that central barriers make a significant contribution to safety on motorways? Will he make sure that there is no hold up in erecting central barriers on the 560 miles of motorway which still have not got them?

Mr. Speed: I confirm that where traffic levels reach a certain peak, central barriers make a significant difference. That is one of the reasons why we have substantially speeded up the mileage of them to be provided from 1975 to 1974. We do all we can within the limits of materials, manpower and weather.

Long Lorries

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has had in the past regarding the need to prohibit long lorry loads from the roads, in view of the hazard they cause to other road users; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Peyton: I receive many representations on this subject; it would be neither practicable nor appropriate to publish my replies.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that long lorry loads present an irritation, an inconvenience and an occupational hazard to all other road users? Is he aware that, because of this, other countries have prohibited this method of transport? Will he discuss with manufacturers materials that can be transported by rail for assembly at the point of delivery and so assist other users to enjoy our highways?

Mr. Peyton: This matter is receiving the careful attention of the Government. The sensible policy, in view of the enormous contribution to the economy made by road transport, is to provide a modern system of highways and to confine the larger vehicles and the big loads to highways which can reasonably accommodate them.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend take active steps, particularly in national parks where long lorry loads are causing hazards to pleasure motorists, to confine long lorry loads to the main trunk roads going round the national parks?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir, I will. My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that any sensible policy will take a certain length of time to evolve.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES—EFTA COUNTRIES (AGREEMENTS)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the conclusion of the Special Relations Agreements between the European Communities and each of the EFTA non-candidate countries.
On Saturday, 22nd July, I represented Her Majesty's Government at the signature ceremony in Brussels for these agreements. Because of the resignation of the Finnish Government two days earlier the Finnish Agreement was initialled but not signed.
It had always been envisaged that the enlargement of the European Communities should be accompanied by suitable arrangements to meet the needs of the EFFA non-candidate countries. Our own strong interest in the preservation so far as possible of the free trade already established under EFTA has been reaffirmed many times in this House and in the communiqués issued after ministerial meetings of EFTA.
The agreements which have now been concluded provide for free trade in industrial goods between the Communities and each of the EFTA non-candidate countries, after a transitional period, with, in addition, agricultural provisions in some cases. Each agreement follows the same general pattern but there are variations to meet the needs of each non-candidate country. Copies of the texts of the agreements will be placed in the Library of the House.
There are special transitional arrangements for a limited number of products; for example, paper imports from the EFTA non-candidate countries. The conclusion of the negotiations on paper,

on which the Communities will be eliminating their tariff only over an extended period of 11 years, presented certain problems. It is particularly satisfactory that these were overcome. We agreed on a solution which tookfull account of the difficulty in which the British Paper Industry finds itself at present, and was also acceptable to our partners in the Communities and EFTA.
I should like to recall that it has long been the policy of successive Governments to seek to heal the division of Western Europe into two trading blocs. The House will no doubt note with satisfaction that as a result of these agreements this division has now been healed. That, I believe, is the real significance of last Saturday's ceremony.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that we found it a little difficult to follow the final stages of the negotiations for an industrial free trade area agreement as closely as we would have wished because they coincided with the substantial blackout on reporting in the British Press caused by the industrial dispute. Subject to that, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the whole House will note with satisfaction the conclusion of the industrial free trade area agreement between the European Economic Communities and the non-applicant EFTA countries, with one reservation on Sweden and Finland to which I will return in a moment?
It will give a special satisfaction to such champions of European free trade as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who pioneered this whole concept in 1958, and to all those in this country and in Norway and Denmark who have argued that there is a realistic alternative to full membership of the EEC in a satisfactory free trade area agreement.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the EFTA countries concerned in the agreement will not have to pay any contribution to the Community budget, that they have accepted no obligation to import high-priced Community agricultural products, that they will retain full control over the movement of capital and establishments, that they will retain the right to pursue their own independent commercial and tariff problems, and that they will not transfer


the power to make laws from their own Parliaments to the institutions of the Six? If that is so, as I believe it is, is it not clear that this is exactly the kind of arrangement that we in Britain could and should have negotiated once it became clear that reasonable and satisfactory terms for full membership were not available to us?
Turning to Finland and Sweden, I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that throughout the negotiations he reiterated that the Government's policy was to achieve an agreement which would avoid the necessity of re-erecting trade barriers, should Britain join the EEC, between ourselves and our existing free trade area partners of EFTA. That has been a persistent theme in Government statements. We note that this has been watered down in the statement today to:
in the preservation so far as possible of the free trade already established under EFTA.
How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain as being consistent with his pledge the imposition of what I believe is to be an 8 per cent. tariff on our paper imports from Sweden and Finland, together with a duty-free quota amounting to considerably less than the average which we have imported from them in the last three years?
I find it all the more extraordinary in that this is not an agreement which the Six have insisted that we should accept, but rather an agreement which we ourselves have demanded of the non-applicant EFTA countries entirely of our own free will.
Finally, does not the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that if he is serious about healing divisions between trading blocsthere is all the more reason now for him energetically to press the Government for a further post-Kennedy Round, so that we cannot get a system of regional trading blocs which will divide the whole world trading system?

Mr. Rippon: May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about our satisfaction at the conclusion of these agreements. There was plenty in the Press about the matters raised in the negotiations which were of particular importance to British industry. It is true that the news blackout prevented people

appreciating that we concluded matters satisfactorily last Saturday.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the non-candidate countries do not accept many of the obligations which we have accepted. On the other hand, they do not get the benefits of participating in the decision-making process of the Communities, or in the development of the commercial, industrial and regional policies which are important to us.
The right hon. Gentleman and the House will recall that the Leader of the Opposition when he was promoting this application made it perfectly clear—and we accepted it—that second-class membership would not be suitable for the United Kingdom. He said that on 26th March, 1968.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Sweden and Finland by not becoming full members will not enjoy all the advantages. The new arrangements for paper represent a fair balance of mutual advantage in the changed circumstances. We told the Community that we were quite happy to see a lower tariff and a shorter transitional period to full free trade, but that if there were to be a tariff there could not be discrimination between us and the rest of the Community. We said that if the Community were to insist on 8 per cent. we should have to insist on the same. Throughout the transitional period we shall move up to 8 per cent., while the other Community countries move down to 8 per cent., at least until 1977; thereafter, we move together in equal stages towards complete free trade. That is one example that shows that a country cannot expect to opt for second-class membership and get all the advantages.
We appreciate that the neutrals have particular problems, but in the course of the ceremonies on Saturday various representatives of the countries concerned welcomed the fact that the agreements leave the way open for further evolution and for various non-candidate countries to play a greater part in the years ahead.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the second Kennedy Round and the arrangements which will have to be made in an enlarged Community to bring about a greater liberalisation of trade in Europe. We shall now have to think about our relationship with the rest of


the world, and no doubt this will be one of the matters which will be discussed at the summit.
In regard to Sweden and Finland, the arrangements we have made provide for 90 per cent. of their present trade to this country to come in duty-free. This is taking account of the fact that we have offered duty-free quotas for the bulk of their exports of paper.

Sir Robin Turton: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his success in the enlargement of free trade in Europe, may I ask him to reconsider his decision merely to place a copy of this agreement in the Library of the House? Surely it is important that every Member should have this document as either a Command Paper or a White Paper so that it may be properly examined by hon. Members.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure my right hon. Friend is right. The first step is to put copies of the various agreements in the Library. Thereafter all the agreements will be published in the miscellaneous series of Command Papers. The agreements relating to the Coal and Steel Community, to which the United Kingdom was a party, will be published in the treaty series.

Mr. Jay: Did I rightly understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these EFTA countries will not have to make any contribution at all to the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, that is right; I indicated that they do not have to accept some of the obligations.

Mr. Heffer: Then why should we have to do so?

Mr. Rippon: As a result, of course, they do not get the advantages.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: What effect will this have on traditional imports from Canada, especially on paper imports?

Mr. Rippon: We took action in the earlier negotiations to safeguard in the various provisions in the Treaty of Accession our imports from Canada.

Mr. Mayhew: May we have an assurance that we shall continue to enjoy

the big advantages of this important agreement if we withdrawn from the EEC after joining it?

Mr. Rippon: I fear not.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that even if the point appears still not to be understood by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), it is clear that the non-members cannot expect to play the same rôle in the formation of central policy in the Community in the coming decades as that played by full members?

Mr. Rippon: As a LabourForeign Secretary one said, if we were not full members we would simply be passengers on a train, somebody else would be doing the driving, and we would not have any control over the direction in which it was going.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he is talking nonsense in referring to our travelling on a train? Does not this agreement represent a victory for the non-applicant EFTA countries, rather than for those who are within the EEC at the moment? Is he further aware that if he and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had pursued this policy from 1957 onwards, the mainstream of European unity would now have been consolidated instead of fragmented, and that the EEC agreement which was concluded and negotiated in the 1960s has held back European unity rather than fostered it? However, we welcome this latest agreement, which will help the Government to be saved from themselves in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Rippon: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the statement being nonsensical, I would remind him that I was quoting the then Labour Foreign Secretary at the time the Labour Government made the application. I think the then Foreign Secretary made a fair point. No. doubt a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish matters had taken a different course. A great many people in the late 1950s thought that we could negotiate simply an industrial free trade area. Experience proved that this was not possible for us, nor was it desirable. We have all been agreed on that for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker: This is the sort of occasion when the Chair finds itself in difficulty. The longer I allow questions on the statement to continue, the less time will be left to discuss the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, assuming that the next Motion is carried.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL (SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move,

That the Order [11th April] be supplemented as follows:—

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, subject to paragraph 2 below, at Eight o'clock today.
2. If any Motion under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) falls to be considered during the period for Consideration of Lords Amendments as afore said, then a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on such a Motion before Eight o'clock shall be added to the period for Consideration of Lords Amendments, and, if necessary, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Consideration of Lords Amendments for such time as is provided under this paragraph to bring such Consideration to a conclusion.
3. In accordance with the Order [11th April], paragraph 6 of that Order (which relates to dilatory Motions) and paragraph 9 of that Order (which relates to private business) shall have effect in relation to the Proceedings mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Order as if today were an allotted day within the meaning of that Order.
4.—(1) If at the expiration of the period for which the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments may continue by virtue of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Order, those Proceedings have not been completed, then for the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has, been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, ifthat Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forth with the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such (if any) of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall then forthwith—

(i) put the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a specified Lords Amendment and on any Motion that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended,
(ii) put the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House does disagree with the Lords in a specified Lords Amendment,
(iii) put the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the


Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those designated by Mr. Speaker or, if none of the remaining Lords Amendments have been so designated, in all the remaining Lords Amendments, and
(iv) if any of the remaining Lords Amendments have been so designated, put separately, with respect to each of those Amendments so designated, the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.


(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. In paragraph 11 of the Order [11th April] (which relates to Supplemental Orders) any reference to that Order shall be construed as including a reference to this Order.

Under the timetable procedure this stage of the Bill was not originally allocated a specific amount of time since it was not then possible to foresee the number of Amendments which the House of Lords might make to the Bill. The legislation on this matter affecting England and Wales attracted no fewer than 169 Lords Amendments, but in the Scottish Bill which is now before us we are dealing with only some 30 Lords Amendments. The number of Amendments with which we have to deal today is considerably fewer than those with which the House was faced yesterday. Therefore, the time which has been allocated for discussion of these Amendments, which takes us to 8 p.m., is in proportion to the number of Amendments and is a fair allocation.

A large proportion of the Lords Amendments make improvements in the Bill and have been made in recognition of representations and advice received, in many cases from the Opposition. Is it too much to hope that we shall not hear hon. Members opposite today arguing against points which they or their noble Friends in the other place had made earlier and which are now embodied in Amendments? I suggest that several of these Amendments should be accepted without the need for further discussion because they meet points made by the Opposition.

The Motion before us supplements the original allocation of time order for the Bill, which was approved by the House on 11th April. The original order provided for a timetable at this stage of the Bill, and the supplemental order

which we are now proposing will provide time for discussion of Lords Amendments until 8 o'clock this evening. Under the proposed procedure, at 8 p.m. all the remaining business will be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 4 of the supplemental order. This procedure is in accordance with precedents on the consideration of Lords Amendments.

I remind the House that the Bill has already been discussed at great length. It occupied 35 sittings of the Scottish Standing Committee, covering 114 hours, and this is a Scottish record. The Committee stage took more time than that on any other Scottish Bill since 1945. It is probably an all-time record, but it is not easy to check the records before that date.

The majority of these Amendments assist the main provisions of the Bill. They include the introduction of a new comprehensive and generous rent rebate scheme applying to all public sector tenants in Scotland; also a rent allowances scheme which gives help to private tenants for the first time. There will also for the first time be a new subsidy giving local authorities direct assistance with slum clearance work. Housing associations will receive new help with works of improvement and conversion as well as new building. The rate-borne housing deficits in Scotland, at present running at about £40 million, will by 1975–76 be reduced to between £15 and £20 million. This will greatly reduce the burden on Scottish ratepayers.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we are dealing with a guillotine Motion. The Secretary of State appears to be addressing himself to the merits, if there are any, of the Bill. Surely this is not in order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I have heard anything that is out of order. But the more quickly the House disposes of this Motion, the more time hon. Members will have to deal with the Bill.

Mr. Campbell: I have almost completed my speech. Obviously the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was not here yesterday and did not hear the equivalent English Bill being dealt with. There was no difficulty on that occasion.
Government assistance to housing is expected to increase from the present level of £55 million to over £70 million by 1975–76. This reflects the Government's determination to tackle the housing problems which exist in Scotland today.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: We are very grateful to the Secretary of State for his speech. We have heard it at least six times before. It was not very good even the first time.
We are dealing with a timetable Motion in respect of certain Lords Amendments. I say "certain Lords Amendments" advisedly. We have got them with indecent haste. The other place completed its consideration of the Bill at 7 o'clock on Thursday last, 20th July, following which someone raced over here to ensure that they were ordered to be printed. They were duly printed on the same day. They appeared in the Admission Order Office on Saturday, 22nd July. However, yesterday we got another Notice Paper. Two of the Amendments should not have been there. In other words, there are not 34 Lords Amendments, as the Secretary of State said, but only 32.
The Secretary of State said that the timetable had been arranged on the basis of the number of Amendments that the Government knew were coming from the other place. However, the business for this week was announced on Thursday of last week, at the usual time, and before the House of Lords had started the last day of the Bill's Report stage. The House of Lords accepted 20 more Amendments. It did not expect to accept them all; what I call the Polwarth muddle took place, and the Government will take out one of them. Such was their incompetence that they have even had to correct the grammar of the Lords Amendments. Evidently the Government knew how many Amendments would be put forward and accepted, and they decided on the timetable Motion before the other place embarked upon the last day of the Bill's Report stage. That is rather an insult to another place.
Equally, the Government decided about the amount of time that we should

have. As you rightly interposed, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing another matter, originally we had from 3.30 until 8 o'clock. We lost a quarter of an hour to start with, and the amount of time that we take discussing this Motion will come out of the total time that we have to discuss the Lords Amendments. I am very conscious of that. But, that being so, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he could have spared us his bit of Second Reading utterance again.
There are some of the Amendments that we welcome. We do not welcome the Bill. We do not welcome the fact that we are now at the final stage with yet another Amendment. This is indeed a piece of bloody business: guillotined in Committee, guillotined on Report, and now even guillotined on Lords Amendments. It means that we shall not be able to give the attention to some of these Amendments that we should have liked. However, I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State at least give some explanation of those of his duties and responsibilities which are covered by important Amendments. As late as 20th July Amendments were being discussed dealing with vital principles in relation to the default powers of the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Government are still perfecting their weapon of aggression against local authorities.
I am glad to see the Lord Advocate here. I regret that probably he will not be with us for the whole day. I understand and sympathise with the reason for that, and I do not blame him. But he must be conscious of the fact, if the Secretary of State is not, that some strange bits of law have been imported into Clause 72 by way of Amendments at the last minute. They are very important and they merit considerable discussion. However, we shall not have a great deal of time for that, and the responsibility is the Government's.
It does not say very much for the competence of the Scottish Office that at this late stage we should be dealing in such a way with this vital point about default. What is more, it does not end there. A further change in relation to default is made in Schedule 9. When it was discussed in another place the noble Lord in charge of the Bill excused himself because of its technicality. He was


not au fait with the business of explaining it to the House.
The noble Lord got himself into a considerable muddle. In the House of Lords the Government actually accepted an Amendment that they wanted to reject, and now, under a guillotine, we have to rediscuss it and persuade the Government to leave that Amendment where it is. We have to persuade the Government to agree with the Lords in that Amendment. The Government did not know this when they decided that the Bill should be guillotined. Certainly they did not know it when they decided on a guillotine in this shortened form, with it falling at 8 o'clock.
It is not the number of Amendments that should determine the time that we take; it is the quality of them. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to move them, if he does, I am sure that he will tell us how important they are. I am sure that he will say about those to Clause 72 that they are vital to his responsibilities and duties under this legislation, which he considers important but which we consider to be tragic from a Government all set on confrontation.
It is unworthy of the Secretary of State to come along with a Motion like this with Amendments like these. I suggest that we vote against the Motion right away.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I do not believe that this occasion should be allowed to pass without some more general comment on the Government's recent handling of Scottish legislation. If we carry this Motion, the suggestion is that we complete our consideration of Lords Amendments at 8 o'clock and then start on our considera-

tion of the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill. I confess that that is of no great interest to me, but I know that it is of concern to certain hon. Members. Presumably it will take some time. Then we have the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill, and presumably that, too, will take some time. Following that we have a United Kingdom Bill. Then we go back to Scotland and to the second major piece of legislation before us today. Presumably the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill will come on in the small hours of the morning.

This is not the way to treat Scottish Members, with four items of Scottish legislation down for discussion on one day. The Government cannot proceed on the assumption that all Scottish Members have served on the relevant Standing Committees. I am not concerned how long the Committee stages have taken. Every hon. Member who has not been a member of the Standing Committees has the right to take part in the discussion of both the Lords Amendments and the Amendments that we ourselves table on each of these Measures. It is treating Scottish Members with less than fairness to shove so many individual items of Scottish legislation on the Order Paper for discussion on any one day.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he criticises the time allocated to the very important Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. However, the Government's handling of legislation generally leaves a great deal to be desired. Before we proceed to vote on this Motion I believe that it is important that those criticisms should be voiced.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes, 257.

Division No. 323.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Astor, John
Boscawen, Robert
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moran&amp;Nairn)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cary, Sir Robert


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bray, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chichester-Clark, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Churchill, W. S.


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cockeram, Eric




Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dean, Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Sharples, Sir Richard


Fell, Anthony
Luce, R. N.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Simeons, Charles


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fry, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Gorst, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernle
Tugendhat, Christopher


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar
Walters, Dennis


Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Warren, Kenneth


Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wilkinson, John


Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil
Woodnutt, Mark


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John



Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)



James, David




Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)









NOES


Abse, Leo
Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael


Albu, Austen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John


Allen, Scholefield
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Millan, Bruce


Ashley, Joe
Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Ashton, Joe
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnes, Michael
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Baxter, William
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Murray, Ronald King


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orbach, Maurice


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rees, Merlyn, (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick,CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham. Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sillars, James


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steel, David


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Ewing, Henry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund



Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher








Wallace, George
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Watkins, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wool, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Whitehead, Philip
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order [11th April] be supplemented as follows:—
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, subject to paragraph 2 below, at Eight o'clock today.
2. If any Motion under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) falls to be considered during the period for Consideration of Lords Amendments as afore said, then a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on such a Motion before Eight o'clock shall be added to the period for Consideration of Lords Amendments, and, if necessary, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Consideration of Lords Amendments for such time as is provided under this paragraph to bring such Consideration to a conclusion.
3. In accordance with the Order [11th April], paragraph 6 of that Order (which relates to dilatory Motions) and paragraph 9 of that Order (which relates to private business) shall have effect in relation to the Proceedings mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Order as if today were an allotted day within the meaning of that Order.
4.—(1) If at the expiration of the period for which the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments may continue by virtue of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Order, those Proceedings have not been completed, then for the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment

of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such (if any) of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall then forthwith—
(i) put the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a specified Lords Amendment and on any Motion that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended,
(ii) put the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House does disagree with the Lords in a specified Lords Amendment,
(iii) put the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those designated by Mr. Speaker or, if none of the remaining Lords Amendments have been so designated, in all the remaining Lords Amendments, and
(iv) if any of the remaining Lords Amendments have been so designated, put separately, with respect to each of those Amendments so designated, the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. In paragraph 11 of the Order [11th April] (which relates to Supplemental Orders) any reference to that Order shall be construed as including a reference to this Order.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out "at the end of" and insert "in".

4.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a simple drafting Amendment which was suggested in another place. I do not think any confusion could arise from the use of the words "at the end of", but there is no doubt that where one word can be used instead of four it is a good thing.

Mr. William Ross: This Amendment was suggested not only in the other place but in the early stages of the Committee proceedings, and we were surprised at the obduracy of the Government in not accepting it. Naturally, we welcome the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, leave out "six".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) chided me for obduracy. Perhaps I may gently pull his leg and remind him that the Amendment could have been dealt with if he had been less obdurate in the early stages of the Committee proceedings, because he moved a similar Amendment, I accepted it, and he then proceeded to debate the matter for a whole morning, at the end of which the Amendment was not accepted.
The purpose of the Amendment is to delete the word "six". The word does not seem to be absolutely necessary,

although it does seem to add to the clarification of the Clause. Following the argument for economy of drafting, which I advanced in the early stages in Committee as a reason why the Amendment should be accepted, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel better about it now and agree to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

THE HIGH COST SUBSIDY AND ASSOCIATED RATE FUND CONTRIBUTION

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 42, after "year" insert "by order"

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Lords Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Younger: The effect of the two Amendments is to ensure that the Scottish average level of rent income and expenditure for the purposes of assessing entitlement to high cost subsidy will be published not by means of departmental circular—as was indicated in Committee—but by order, subject to the negative Resolution procedure in either House of Parliament.
In another place Lord Hughes moved Amendment No, 3, and it was accepted by the Government, who thereafter tabled Amendment No. 4 to ensure that the order determining the Scottish rent income and the Scottish average expenditure would be subject to parliamentary procedure. It was clear during the debate in the other place that the noble Lord expected that the effect of his Amendment would be to make the order subject to parliamentary procedure, and as Amendment No. 3 alone would not have achieved that the Government added the further Amendment to make certain that the noble Lord's wishes were met.

Mr. William Ross: The Amendment is eminently desirable. This is something that we wished upon the Government which they did not accept at the time. These are important sums for the determination of average levels of rent income and expenditure, because these matters will deter-


mine the high cost subsidy and the rent fund contribution. We are therefore pleased that the Government have decided to accept the Amendment.
Does this mean that the order varying any sums referred to in subsection (2) will be covered by a similar procedure?

Mr. Younger: I shall have to look into that and let the right hon. Gentleman know.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42

RENT AGREEMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 34, line 36, after "writing" insert:
signed by the landlord and the tenant".

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Lords Amendments No. 7 and No. 8.

Mr. Younger: Amendment No. 6 is a drafting improvement to the Bill and was suggested by the Opposition in another place. I felt that, strictly speaking, it was unnecessary to make this change, as an agreement must in any event be signed by the landlord and tenant, and I am advised that to be an agreement it would have to be signed. It is therefore not strictly necessary for this to be written into the Bill, but I see no objection to its being done in order further to clarify matters.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 have the effect of requiring the information mentioned in subsection (3)(b) to be included at the very beginning of the agreement. The substantive Amendment—No. 8—is identical in effect to one moved by my right hon. Friend during the Report stage of the Housing Finance Bill. These Amendments, which were suggested by the Opposition in another place, will have the effect of clarifying the layout of an agreement and will, therefore, add to the clarity of it when

it is being looked at by somebody who is affected by it. This provision may, therefore, be of advantage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 64

PREVIOUS RENT LIMIT EXCEEDING REGISTERED RENT: SPECIAL RENT LIMIT

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 54, line 27, at end insert:
( ) Where a registration is by virtue of this section a provisional registration, the reference in section 40(4)(b) of the Act of 1971 to the date on which the registration of rent took effect shall be construed as a reference to the date of the provisional registration.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a drafting omission in the Clause, which arises, incidentally, from the application under Clause 61(2) of Section 40 of the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, to that Clause.
Section 40(3) of the 1971 Act provides that where a rent for a dwelling house has been registered no application by the landlord or the tenant alone for the registration of a different rent can be entertained, except on certain limited grounds, before the expiry of three years from the date upon which the registration of a rent took effect.
Clause 61(3) provides that, subject to Clause 64, the registration of a rent for a housing association tenancy takes effect on the date of registration. But where the registration is, by vrtue of Clause 64, provisional—that is to say, where the rent limit imediately before registration exceeds the registered rent and the Secretary of State has directed a special rent limit—the registration cannot be said to have taken effect and there is, therefore, no date as from whch the period of three years could run. Although it was intended that the right to apply for registration of a different rent should be available where the existing registration was only provisional, there is at present no provision which achieves this in such a case.
The Amendment provides that the reference in Section 40(4)(b) of the 1971 Act to the date on which registration of the rent took effect is to be construed as a reference to the date of the provisional registration. It therefore ensures that an application for the registration of a different rent can be made either by the landlord or tenant after the expiry of the three years from the date of the provisional registration, or before the expiry of that period, on the limited grounds of a change in the circumstances.
Without the Amendment the period of three years would have no start in these cases, and there would consequently be some risk of real uncertainty as to the right of an association to apply for a new registration after the lapse of such a period. The Amendment is therefore needed for the avoidance of doubt which could lead to uncertainty in a limited number of cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72

DEFAULT BY LOCAL AUTHORITY

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 58, line 9, at end insert:
( ) In subsection (1) for the words from "there has" to "this Act" there shall be substituted the words "a local authority—
(a) have failed effectively to discharge any of their functions under Part II, III or IV of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972; or
(b) have failed so to discharge any function conferred on them by that Act or any other enactment as to secure the effective discharge of any of their functions under those Parts of that Act;"

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it would be convenient to consider at the same time the Government Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 11 and also Lords Amendment No. 33.

Mr. Younger: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out 'shall be' and insert 'were'.
This is a purely grammatical Amendment. If the House will look at the words which are being deleted, I think it will agree that the words "shall be" would

make wrong grammar as they come after the words "as if" in the original wording in the Bill. It is clear, purely on grammatical grounds, that the passage should read "as if there were substituted the words", which will lead to better understanding of the provision.

Mr. Ross: Not only for the better understanding of the provision but the accuracy of it. On that understanding, we agree with the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
At the outset I assure the House that the group of Amendments relating to default powers under the Bill, which we are now to discuss, in no way betoken any change of policy on this issue from that which I outlined during the Committee stage and which my right hon. Friend and I also outlined during the progress of Report stage of the Bill. These are powers which have been taken in housing Bills for a long time. The Housing Bills introduced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) during his time at the Scottish Office were no exception. There have always been default powers in housing legislation, and I think it is common ground that such powers there have to be. There is nothing new in these powers, which we hope—I think it will also be the feeling of the House as a whole—will rarely if ever have to be used.
That has been the position in the past. The powers have only been used on rare occasions. They are powers which have to be held in the background, and we all hope that they will never have to be used. Nevertheless, it is important, if such powers are to be in the Bill and any housing legislation generally, that they should make sense in terms of the legislation and that they should be brought up-to-date from time to time to make sure they are relevant to Acts as they are produced.
The present default powers of the Secretary of State relating to rents are contained in Section 195 of the Housing


(Scotland) Act, 1966, which in turn refers to the duty of a local authority under Section 151(5) of that Act, which says:
…review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.
Under the Bill a local authority's duties in the fixing of rents and the granting of rebates are prescribed in detail. Consequently, it is only logical that parts of Section 151 of the 1966 Act are repealed.
Paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 9 to the Bill as it is at present inserts the appropriate reference to the Bill into Section 195 of the 1966 Act. However, it is possible that a local authority might fail effectively to discharge one of its functions under Parts II, III or IV of the Bill because of a prior failure to discharge a function under another part of the Bill or under some other enactment. For example, it is possible that a local authority might fail to comply fully with the requirement of Section 62 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1969, to provide written notice of rent increases not less than four weeks before the date on which the increase is due to take effect. It is therefore necessary to recognise such a possibility leading to a default situation, and the Amendment does exactly that.
At the same time, for ease of reference, the wording of the existing Amendment to Section 195 of the 1966 Act presently contained in paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 9 has been slightly revised by the addition of "effectively" and it has been brought into Clause 72 of the Bill. That addition might, for example, cover a situation where an authority gave the required notice of rent increase but took no steps to collect the increased rent.
I suggest that these small Amendments are necessary to make sure that the effect of what the House clearly wanted is attained; namely, that it will be clearly understood by local authorities what their duties are, and it will be possible for the Secretary of State to ensure that they are carried out according to the Statutes as passed by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in a little doubt. Are we dealing with Lords Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we are dealing only with Lords Amendments

Nos. 11 and 33. We have already disposed of the Amendment to No. 11.

Mr. Brown: It might have been for the convenience of the House to have discussed Lords Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 33 and 34 together. Perhaps the Government would agree to that course.

Mr. Younger: It probably would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 33 now and the rest of the Amendments mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in a group.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the grouping suggested had been agreed to.

Mr. Brown: I do not know who it was agreed with, and nobody seems to know. It is unfortunate that the debate will be split on what is basically the same subject. On Lords Amendment No. 11 the Government do not seem to have been able to bring their script up to date. It is word for word the same as was used in another place by the noble Lord, the Minister of State. I admit that the Under-secretary of State conveys the impression that he knows a wee bit more about it than the noble Lord.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman probably wrote it for the noble Lord.

Mr. Brown: All things are possible. However, it is unfortunate that we seem to be circulating, to some extent, these general powers. The Minister is taking no new powers—that is the gist of the argument he has put up. Reference has been made to the 1966 Act, which was a Labour Government Act, and no doubt we shall hear something about that from hon. Members opposite. That Act was taken from a previous Act.

Mr. Ross: It was a consolidation Act.

Mr. Brown: Whether the 1966 Act was consolidation or not, the provision was in the 1969 Act as well. So far as I am aware, it has always been a part of all housing Acts since the earliest of them and states
To review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require
It is difficult to argue against that because obviously the powers have been there, although they have never been used by a Labour Government, who


always prefer to be reasonable in bringing local authorities along with them. Although it is difficult to object to a continuation of powers in this narrow sense—I accept that it is difficult to object to the Secretary of State haying some kind of power—nevertheless, it is on the second group of Amendments that I shall show that the powers will be used in entirely different circumstances. Although this is mainly a drafting Amendment, it is related to the three other Amendments which I want to speak against later. In the meantime, on the matter of principle we should disagree with the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: We very much disagree with the Amendment. After all these weeks, after all the discussions in Committee, and on Report, when we dealt at length with default powers, sacrificing our right to discuss other matters to concentrate on them, and to obtain from the Government an idea of what they intended, it is surprising that the Government find it necessary to particularise and specify new default powers. It is particularly surprising in view of the importance the Government place upon the Bill and the benefits they think will accrue from it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said, there have been default powers in previous Measures. I remember giving a history of the matter and receiving the thanks of the Under-Secretary at the time, though later he said that I had taken too long. It sometimes takes a long time to enlighten people. I pointed out that there were default powers in the 1924 Act, powers that were exercised by Governments. I said then that they can be used beneficially or otherwise.
The John Wheatley 1924 Act included powers to ensure that local authorities would build houses for the people. The burgh the Under-Secretary represents and the burgh in which I live is the burgh in which my father was a town councillor. He was one of five people who signed a form applying to the Secretary of State to use his compulsory powers to compel Ayr Town Council to build houses. That was a worth while use of power by a Secretary of State. But the kind of power

we are dealing with is one that was instituted by Tory Governments to force local authorities to increase rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will remember being at the receiving end of one of the inquiries involved and the compulsions used by a Secretary of State to compel his local authority to put up rents. That is an entirely different thing.
The Amendment comes very ill from a Government that proclaimed at the last General Election how they were all for freedom of local authorities, for letting the people decide, because they know it all. Evidently now the Government know it all. Having produced the Bill and specified within it exactly when the rents will go up, and by how much, they are determined to follow through and see that no discretion is left to local authorities. Therefore, they say, "We must have specified and special default powers". There are within the local government Measures default powers. If a local authority does not carry out a duty, then after an investigation and local inquiry the Government can compel it to carry it out. I think that it was in the 1963 Act that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) introduced the provision whereby the Government could introduce not only a rent scheme but also a rent rebate scheme. I do not think the power was ever used, but the Conservative Government were always more concerned about raising rents than about building houses.
The Under-Secretary says that there is no change of policy, but there is a change of weapons to enforce the policy. More and more powers and additional weapons are being used to ensure that there is no loophole left for local authorities which have declared that they do not want anything to do with this legislation and which have told the Secretary of State, "If you want to put up the rents, if you are denying to local authorities what has been their responsibility ever since there was public housing, and also the responsibility for deciding the rent, and are putting in legislation exactly what will be done, then you do it". That is effectively what many local authorities are telling the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, he is determined to ensure that there will be no loophole. That is the reason for the


new subsection. It is a considerable new subsection, because it does not wipe out anything that already exists within the Clause. The Clause is one of the more important in the Bill, adding two new subsections to Section 195 of the 1966 Act.
Local authorities are being told that they all know what is in the Bill, but they do not. They will not know what it is in it until we have dealt with the Lords Amendments before us. Probably the Under-Secretary's own local authority—certainly my own local authority—is not sitting this month or for the first fortnight of August. Even local authorities and their staffs get holidays. At the last minute we have this kind of confrontation, with a new power in respect of default.
We have not had an adequate explanation. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the debate in another place. I, too, read in the Official Report what was said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill there. I did not find anything very enlightening in what he said.
I think the default powers were quite adequate. The Government were satisfied in Committee and on Report that they were adequate. I think that the change has come about because they have begun to realise exactly what they are up against, and that they will have to act. They are determined that there will be no legal loophole left to local authorities which seek to defend themselves from the invasion of their own sphere by the Secretary of State. The fixing of rents and granting of rebates are prescribed in detail, and consequently parts of Section 153 of the 1966 Act are repealed. We knew all that. We knew that the Government were laying down something that was new entirely in respect of rents. They are not asking for a review of rents. They are telling local authorities what the result of that review will be, not just for next year but for the year after, the year after that, and the following year.
All this could have been forseen. We could have had a reasonable argument in reasonable time. But it is twenty minutes to five and we have to finish dealing with all the Amendments by eight o'clock. The Secretary of State thinks that this is reasonable. He was boasting about it, and the benefits of the Bill, at a garden fete somewhere in Scotland last weekend

—[Interruption.] The silent Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should be careful. I was going to applaud the fact that he was not in the other place when it got into a muddle. It would probably have been an adequate explanation if he had been there, but in this case Lord Polwarth did not need any help.
I am not satisfied that we are dealing with a purely technical matter, that the Government are just putting right something they forgot. It is an important matter, and I ask the Secretary of State to show us exactly why it is necessary that there should be this kind of further Amendment. It presumes a public inquiry and investigation by the Secretary of State. Am I right in thinking that the prelude to it is a public inquiry?
One of the things the Government seek to cover up is the fact that a local authority must give four weeks, notice of raising the rent. The only discretion given to local authorities applies in the first year, and the first year is practically over, because it is the financial year ending next May. Quite a few months have passed already. They have to raise £24 for every house on the housing revenue account for that year. The Bill is not yet law. As it stands at present it does not become law—except in those places where it gives a particular date, 1st October—until one month after its passing.
Let us take the position of a local authority. The Bill has to return to another place. It does not finish here today. The Government hope that we shall disagree with the Lords in one of their Amendments, so we shall have to have the general confabulation that takes place in respect of this kind of thing. Today is 26th July. I do not know when the Bill will obtain Royal Assent. Will it be tomorrow, or the next day, or the end of July? It will be the end of August, as the Bill stands, before certain provisions become law. Some local authorities are already on holiday; their officials are away. The £24 per house does not necessarily fall upon every house. The one discretion to a local authority is that within the maximum of 75p per week per house, the authority can grade it; a little more on one type of house and a little less on another type.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State appreciates how long it takes to work


out this kind of thing We have found how long it took him to work out these default powers. It took him from November until July. But the local authority has to do this within a matter of days, according to the Secretary of State. Do the Government consider it right that if a local authority does not do it, the Secretary of State should use the big stick and exercise the powers of default?
Local authorities have to introduce a rent rebate scheme and a discretion is given to bear a certain percentage of the cost. This, too, will take time, and this, too, is covered by this new default power, covering up for a local authority which will say, "You can hardly claim that we are entirely in default because, under a certain other statute, we have to give so much notice to tenants." They will have to give due notice about the rent rebate schemes as well, and tenants will have to make up their minds about whether they will apply. Time will be required for that. Many forms will be necessary, and so on. The Under-Secretary says that this is purely a little technical matter.
The Government are being unreasonable. I spoke about this matter on Report and in Committee. I pleaded with the Government that if they wished to avoid confrontation they should do something before the Bill passed to another place to give them a certain amount of latitude. The Government must regret this in respect of other Bills which have been passed under guillotine procedures and which were not properly argued out.
I disagree entirely with the Under-secretary in his assessment of the merits of the Amendment. We have not had an adequate explanation. It was interesting that the only justification given for this, both here and in another place, was the reference to the fact that if one changed the rent one had to give tenants a certain amount of notice. This might well conflict with the date of 1st October if local authorities take their time about deciding. By means of this Amendment related Amendments on matters which the Government hope to put back into the Bill later—what I call the Polwarth muddle—the Government seek to deal with their problem.

4.45 p.m.

Instead of taking more time to introduce the Act and giving more time to local authorities, the Government are giving local authorities less time. They are to hamper and harass local authorities with something those authorities do not like. The Government are denying them the time and still declaring them to be in default. That is utterly and totally unreasonable. I do not know how that will stand up in law. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not present to advise us. I have had a message from him about why he cannot be with us. I understand the reason, and we sympathise with him. But it leaves us at a considerable disadvantage because the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place pleaded his ignorance in respect of the technicalities. But from a legal point of view, and for all it will mean to a local authority and local authority members, we are entitled to a full and adequate explanation of what this means for the individual member of a local authority.

If the Under-Secretary does not give such an explanation he is not being responsible to his office and not being fair to those people who are working, unpaid, in public service as councillors of burghs and county councils throughout Scotland. They will be the people who will carry these burdens. They are nearest to the people who will have to pay these increased rents. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates that the rents of local authority houses in Scotland, after a change made in the English Bill, will rise by more than those in England rise. The right hon. Gentleman may consider that that is fair, but I do not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is able to explain to the people of Scotland exactly why, in a part of the United Kingdom that is hardest hit by unemployment—and there is a history of this—higher rents will be charged. That is not an answer for a Government who are fighting inflation. Any increase in rents has to be considered on the basis of it being additional to the present expenditure. Why should it be higher in Scotland than in England? There is no justification for this, and there can be no way out for the Government. Why is there this greater burden upon Scottish local authority tenants?

The Secretary of State is being taken for a ride on this matter. I do not think that he has anyone with experience of local government finance or housing in the Scottish Office. The Under-Secretary does his best, but we have had with us the report of the proceedings of the other place, and we were able to read every word that the Under-Secretary said. His inflections were slightly different, but his accent was the same. The hon. Gentleman probably attended the same English school.

Mr. Younger: No.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: We have heard that one before.

Mr. Ross: Hon. Members will hear it again. Not many hon. Members on the Government benches attended a Scottish school. But it makes it rather doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman is just reading a brief or whether behind that is a background of local authority experience and knowledge. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about my accent. I need not wear a kilt to let folk ken I am a Scotsman. My hon. Friends will have something to say about this matter. Although we have limited time that does not mean that we have to modify our language in dealing with the ridiculous proposal that we should agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said earlier that I thought that the House would be in some difficulty. I am now in some difficulty myself. I wanted to relate Lords Amendment No. 11 to Nos. 12 and 13. Although Amendment No. 11 deals only with a continuation of powers and Amendments No. 12 and 13 can be said to be a slight extension of existing powers, it would have been to my convenience and to the convenience of the House if these Amendments had been grouped, because there will obviously be a wide-ranging debate on default powers and their possible use. Is it too late for these Amendments to be grouped?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The Amendments were not grouped originally, but if it is for the convenience of the House they probably can be, even at this late stage. It is

not for me to say whether they shall be grouped.

Mr. Younger: I always like to be as helpful to the House as I can, but to group the Amendments at this stage would lead to confusion. I moved Amendment No. 11 and spoke to that Amendment only. I am sure that we can have a satisfactory debate on the next Amendment and, indeed, can group future Amendments as the House may wish, but it would be confusing to go back on what we have done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At this stage it would be improper to group the Amendments.

Mr. Peter Doig: I want to reinforce some of the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). My local authority does not meet during August. This is in accordance with the council's standing orders, which can be changed only after giving one year's notice to change them for the following year. There is no hope of the standing orders being changed for this year. Accordingly, the Corporation of Dundee cannot meet during the whole of August.
If the Bill comes into force at the end of July, it may be said that the officials in Dundee can apply the Bill. However, local government is democratic and officials have no power to apply anything. The corporation must make the decision before the officials can do anything. The corporation cannot start to consider this matter and cannot comply with the terms of the Bill, however much it may want to, until the beginning of September.
I have been a victim of default powers. I used to believe that no Government would contemplate financially penalising members of local authorities who perform unpaid public service for which they have been elected but who have made what can be at best described as an error of judgment. I know now from experience—I will not say to my cost, because in the end it cost me nothing—that this can easily happen. Had I not been able to furnish the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), with the reasons why we had done certain things and why financial sanctions should not be applied against


me and other local authority members, I should have been penalised financially for what could at most be described as lack of good judgment.
The default powers cover not one or two Clauses but Parts II, III and IV and important things like rent rebates and allowances. Some local authorities already operate rent rebate schemes which will become illegal if the Bill is enacted. If the Bill is passed at the beginning of August, it will presumably be illegal for these local authorities to operate such schemes during August. Yet there is no way in which officials can be empowered to change the schemes during August. How do other local authorities which do not operate such schemes set about dealing with the matter? No local authority operates a rent allowance scheme.
Local authorities must determine the rent. The rent must be fixed in such a way that it produces exactly the amount that the Secretary of State says, neither too much nor too little. It will be readily seen that a local authority can easily land itself in default. It will be almost impossible for a local authority not to land itself in default over something in view of the great number of things that it must do.
As I now know from experience that it cannot be said that no Secretary of State would ever apply penal sanctions against unpaid local authority members, I object to the extension of these default powers as proposed in the Amendment and urge my hon. Friends to oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I, too, oppose the Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) said, the provisions of Parts II, III and IV are very important, none more so than Part IV which relates to the determination of rents and other charges.
Much has been said about the time which will be necessary to fix rents, to introduce rebate schemes, and to bring into operation the new housing accounts which will be necessary to cater for the subsidies. Time is of the essence. In my constituency one local authority has decided to implement the Bill. As a result of the combined forces of the Scottish

National Party and of the Tory Party in Stirling, which were sufficient to outvote my colleagues on the town council, a rent increase of £1.50 a fortnight has been applied to all council tenants in Sterling.
On Monday of last week the Provost of Stirling, in arguing for this decision, said that he guaranteed that the Bill—I do not know for whom he was speaking, whether for the Government or for himself—would of certainty be on the Statute Book in the not too distant future. This is a sort of reverse example of a local authority being under pressure.
A great many of the local authorities of Scotland are Labour-controlled, fortunately, and they will take the time necessary to protect their tenants from the vicious effects of the Bill, but there are less fortunate areas, such as Stirling, where authorities will not take proper care and time but will jump the gun and set about introducing the Bill even in advance of its being passed. I am grateful, therefore, for the opportunity to put on record my abhorrence of the decision taken in Stirling, and I strongly oppose the Amendment.
We have still to hear from the Government how they define those areas of housing administration which they propose to take over—and, perhaps more important, how they propose to do it—if a local authority decides, as many apparently will, not to implement the Bill. This is another essential matter in relation to the default powers.
Time is of the essense. We must have a far better explanation from the Government of what they propose, and of their motives, than we have had in all our debates on these matters so far.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I, too, oppose the Amendment. Both on Second Reading and in Committee the Secretary of State and the Under-secretary gave assurances that the default powers under the Bill were no different from the default provisions in other housing Acts since 1919. But I am suspicious whenever the Government accept an Amendment along these lines from the other place, an Amendment which seems to me to strengthen the default provisions already in the Bill.
I warn the Government that they are on dangerous ground. In industrial relations and trade union matters, we have seen them use their majority in the House to pass laws which were not acceptable to the majority of the people. In their confrontations with the miners, with the railway workers and with the dockers, the Government have been forced on each occasion to give way against the weight of public opinion.
The Government should remember that, although they may have a majority of votes in the House, they do not have the majority of the people of Scotland behind them. We are the people of Scotland. It is the Labour Party which represents the people, not the political dilettantes who come from the agricultural and residential areas of Scotland to sit on the benches opposite. We are the people of Scotland. We represent 80 per cent. of the Scottish people.
I can guess where the English Members are at the moment. They are not here, but we know that by 8 o'clock they will come trooping into the Chamber to vote against the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland. But I warn the Government that it will not be the end of the matter if they push the Amendment through. If they cannot defeat the miners, who are a minority of the population of the United Kingdom. If they cannot defeat the railway workers, who, equally, are a minority, and if they cannot defeat the dockers, who are concentrated only in small areas of the United Kingdom, how do they imagine that they will defeat 80 per cent. of the people of Scotland?
The Government may use their English majority tonight to go against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, and we may be defeated here, but we shall win, as the dockers, the railway workers and the miners won on the streets of Britain. We shall win on the streets of Scotland.
Every local authority is now considering the default powers which the Minister is laying down. The majority will follow the lead given by Glasgow Corporation, which has said that, in spite of the default provisions, and this Amendment which tightens them, it will not implement the Bill on 1st October. If every Labour local authority in Scotland follows that lead, the Government will not be able to force their will

through, in spite of their majority here—an English majority, not a Scottish majority. Even at this late stage, therefore, I urge the Minister to reconsider the default provisions and think again about the full implications of the Bill.
I do not know what the latest position is in the docks dispute, but I have heard it said that, if the Government are successful in having the dockers released from prison, they will have a hard job to get them out—they will have to carry them out—because once a man is made a martyr he wants to remain a martyr.

Mr. MacArthur: Wasting time.

Mr. Lambie: I can speak from some knowledge of councils and councillors. My father is treasurer of a small but important burgh in Saltcoats. He has said that it is impossible to fulfil the requirements of the Bill and bring in rent increases from 1st October this year because, in the first place, all the local officials are on holiday in August. Do the Government want the holidays of local officials to be cancelled so that they may stay behind and work out the ramifications of the Bill? When September comes, and the local budget, is the fixing of rates to be delayed? Does the Secretary of State want the town chamberlain to be taken away from work on the rates and be put on working out the implications of his Bill? My father has said that that will not be done, because the rates must be fixed. The Tories are always interested in rates, so we shall have to fix the rates. Thus, the local authorities will be able to deal with the Bill only in October, but it is supposed to be implemented then.
The Government have often said that only one person in five will pay the maximum increase, and the majority, because of our low wages and poor standard of living, will be entitled to a rebate. Accordingly, we shall have to send out to forms to all local authority tenants and say "You are likely to be entitled to a rent rebate. Please give full particulars of your family circumstances." Not only that. We shall have to investigate the matter to see whether they tell the truth.
All this will take a long time. In most of the areas we represent, the majority of the people are council tenants. We are dealing here with 80 per cent. of the


people. In my constituency, in the burgh of Kilwinning, 90 per cent. of the people are council tenants. So this will be no small job such as it may be in England and Wales where only a minority of the population are involved. With the best will in the world, no local authority in Scotland with a large number of council tenants will be able to meet the conditions of the Bill before January, 1973. If they do not do it by January, 1973, the Secretary of State must operate the default Clauses.
The Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will find themselves dealing with innocent councillors who will perhaps want to apply the Bill when it is an Act but will not be able to do so because it will be physically impossible. Will the Government apply this Amendment to such councillors? Will they treat them as criminals before they are judged to be criminals? My father, who, as I have said, is treasurer in a small council, became a council member in 1929. He will leave office in two years time, in 1974, with the reorganisation of local government. He has been a member of a local council and a county council, and he has been a treasurer, bailie and magistrate. The only place where he has not been is in gaol.
If the Government want martyrs, there are plenty of them among the councillors of Scotland, just as there are among the railway workers, miners and dockers who are prepared to go to gaol on principle. Just as the Government has given way to the miners, railway workers and dockers, they will need to give way to the councillors of Scotland if they are prepared on principle and on conscientious grounds to go to gaol in defiance of the law.
If the Under-Secretary of State wants a confrontation in Scotland and to fight 80 per cent. of the Scottish people, let him pass the Amendment. But if he wants peace, as the Prime Minister now wants peace among the dockers and as he wanted peace among the miners and railway workers, then he must withdraw the Amendment and support the view of the Opposition. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should oppose the Amendment and say that when the time comes and the confrontation

takes place with local authorities in Scotland we shall give the local councillors the same support as we gave the railway workers, miners and dockers. If we have any faith in democracy, the will of 80 per cent. of the people of any area must prevail. The minority in Scotland is only a rump; it is of no importance in Scotland. It is irrelevant to the Scottish political situation. I hope that my hon. Friends will oppose the Amendment and carry their opposition into the streets of Scotland.

Mr. Younger: If a person of no importance to Scotland may be permitted to address the House, may I say that there has been a great deal more heat than light in the debate. However, we have had one marvellous suggestion—one of the best that I have heard for a long time. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is my neighbour and I have thought many things, mostly friendly, about him. But I have never thought of him as "Mr. Scotland". He, and no one else, is the people, he tells us. That thought will bring great pleasure to the hearts of all Scotsmen. The Scottish Tourist Board should obtain the hon. Gentleman's picture and put it in all their literature. We would be trampled to death by the rush of people coming to Scotland—"Come to Scotland and see me". The hon. Gentleman's speech was most amusing, but I do not think it added much to our consideration of the Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
All we are discussing is one Amendment to improve the default powers which will be needed to ensure that the will of Parliament in housing matters is carried out. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) did not dispute that there was a need for default powers. Indeed, he could not dispute it, because he had ample opportunity to exercise all the default powers from housing legislation during the seven happy years that he was Secretary of State. But he never did. [Interruption.] It seemed like 70 years, but I was giving the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of saying that it was seven.

Mr. Ross: It was a record.

Mr. Younger: It was a record which I hope will never be achieved again.


The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that default powers were unnecessary, because he knows that they are necessary. He made sure that he had default powers—and I am getting the right hon. Gentleman's schoolmaster habit of wagging my finger at the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman's attitude is very strange. He did not deny that default powers were necessary. Indeed, he said that we must have default powers. But he would prefer that they were ineffective rather than effective. There is a perfectly sound case for saying, "Let us have no default powers", or for saying, "Let us have default powers which work." But there is no case for saying, "Let us have default powers which do not work." They would be a waste of everybody's time. It would be a waste of Parliament's time to ask it to pass such powers.

Mr. Ross: We exercise default powers in respect of responsibilities we place on local authorities by legislation. What I object to is the responsibilities which the Government are placing upon local authorities. They are anathema to anyone who has any sense of feeling about the rôle of local authorities in Scotland. I do not like the Bill and therefore I have no desire to see it implemented. Why should I wish to strengthen the default powers in it?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has departed from his usual logic. He is perfectly entitled to dislike the Bill. We are all entitled to dislike Bills. To hear the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends talk one would think that this was the first occasion on which any local authority had disagreed with legislation. Judging from the noise made, one would think that it had never happened before. But even during the time that I have been a Member of the House there have been literally scores of Bills of which many hon. Members disapproved. There is nothing new in right hon. and hon. Members disapproving of Bills.
What we are being asked to do is to regard this Bill as quite different from any other. But it is not. It is anathema to some people and to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, just as were many of the Bills which the right hon. Gentleman introduced. My hon. Friends

would not wish me to remind them of all the Bills to which they objected when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. But we did not, when we were in opposition, encourage local authorities to find it difficult to implement Bills.

Mr. Ross: My goodness!

Mr. Younger: I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Ross: Let the Under-Secretary of State ask his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) about his activities after the passing of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill. Let him ask the Secretary of State about his activities when Edinburgh Corporation failed to implement the Labour Government's Education Act. Their hands are not clean in this respect.

Mr. MacArthur: Rubbish.

Mr. Younger: It would be very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman if what he said were true, because it would help him. But I remember, as he does if he is honest, the clear, statesmanlike and courageous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) who was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time, made it plain that he did not support the breaking of the law. He deserves a great deal more credit than does the right hon. Gentleman for the rather more ambivalent way he is treating this matter at the moment. Of course, we all know that there have to be default powers, and we all know that if there have to be default powers they must be able to work.
The right hon. Gentleman's other point was that there would not be time to implement this Bill. I wonder if he is right about that. There are throughout the length and breath of Scotland many local authorities which willhave no difficulty whatever in implementing this Bill. Many of them have already taken steps, prudently, to do so, and any local authority which genuinely wishes to obey the law and to carry out the Act of Parliament—as we hope by then it will be—will be able to do so. That is the test which it is only perfectly right and reasonable to apply.
I wonder sometimes what the effect would have been if this had been a Bill


laying down that local authorities should reduce rents all over Scotland. Would we have had local authorities queuing up not to implement it? Would they have defied the law? Would they have said they would not do it? They would not have done so, and we all know they would not have done so.
The House should address itself much more calmly and sensibly to the simple proposition of this Lords Amendment. Of course, local authorities and hon. Members may object to what is in an Act of Parliament. I have done so myself, and I disagree with things in Acts still on the Statute Book, but I have never taken it upon myself to say which laws I will obey and which I will not obey. When a Bill is passed by Parliament it becomes the law of the land, and the vast majority of local authorities—I hope all—however strongly they may feel themselves to be against this Bill will, I believe, implement it in the normal way so that these default powers will not be needed.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Since the hon. Gentleman feels these abstract principles so strongly, would he have applied them to the situation many decent Germans were facing after 1933?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has, perhaps, not been the most regular contributor to our debates on this Bill. I am not sure whether he will go down in history as having made the most useful contribution by referring us back to something which happened—in Germany, was it?—in the 'thirties. I though that I was reasonably well briefed for this debate, but I am afraid that I skipped over the Clauses relating to German history in the 'thirties. I hope the hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the Bill. Perhaps he will take it by stages and come up to the 'forties and onwards, and when he gets to the 'seventies perhaps he will give us a telephone call to tell us and we will we come him back into the House of Commons.
These Lords Amendments are, in essence, concerned simply with making the default powers more effective. It will enable those concerned to know where they stand, and to enable Parliament to know that the Bill, if it is passed and becomes an Act, is carried out in the way Parliament intended it to be carried out.

I very much respect the right of anyone to disagree with what is in an Act of Parliament, but, while disagreeing with what is in an Act of Parliament, it is very much more advisable—indeed, it is only right—for everybody to carry out the law of the land when it is made and to carry it out in the way all of us have to do. This Lords Amendment makes clearer what the obligations are. I do not think it will make any difficulties for anyone. I hope that the House will agree with these Lords Amendments.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument very closely. He is making great play with the fact that these Lords Amendments are designed to make these default powers more effective. Are we to assume from this that the default powers in the 1972 Act will have to be more effective because of the Act itself and the conditions it imposes on local authorities?

Mr. Younger: No. I think the hon. Gentleman was here—I do not think he left the Chamber at all—when I explained with great care exactly what these Lords Amendments do. I shall not weary the House by repeating that.
The right hon. Gentleman was complaining that on this occasion the explanation I gave was the same as the explanation given in another place. I am seriously wondering what he would have said if it had been different. Wagging his finger at us he would have said, "What sort of Government is this which gives one explanation in another place and another explanation here?" It is the same explanation because it is the truth. It is the explanation of what the Lords Amendments are about. What did the right hon. Gentleman expect us to produce?

Mr Ross: I expected a variation in language at least. The trouble is that the explanation here was inadequate, as it was in another place. It is the inadequacy of which we complain.

Mr. Younger: I always feel happy and satisfied when the right hon. Gentleman thinks that my arguments are inadequate, because I know that that is the highest compliment which anyone on this side of the House can get from him.
We have had a useful short debate on these Lords Amendments. We have other


Lords Amendments on the default powers to come. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we moved on now. I hope that the House will accept this Lords Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 262.

Division No. 324.]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fell, Anthony
Knox, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lamont, Norman


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fidler, Michael
Lane, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Astor, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer


Awdry, Daniel
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John


Batsford, Brian
Fox, Marcus
Luce, R. N.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McCrindle, R. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gorst, John
Marten, Neil


Bowden, Andrew
Gower, Raymond
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maude, Angus


Bray, Ronald
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Money, Ernle


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper


Carlisle, Mark
Havers, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mudd, David


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Chichesler-Clark, R.
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Churchill, W. S.
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clegg, Walter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John


Cordle, John
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dean, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dixon, Piers
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy





Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sharples, Sir Richard
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Simeons, Charles
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Soref, Harold
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Hamish Gray


Spence, John
Waddington, David



NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Albu, Austen
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
John, Brynmor


Allen, Scholefield
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edelman. Maurice
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Ewing, Harry
Kaufman, Gerald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kelley, Richard


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kinnock, Neil


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Foley, Maurice
Lamond, James


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Cant, R. B.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lomas, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank


Coleman Donald
Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMilan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hooson, Emlyn
Marks, Kenneth


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Horam, John
Marquand, David


Davidson, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Mikardo, Ian


Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dormand, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Milne, Edward







Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin


Molloy, William
Probert, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn G. R.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Richard, Ivor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Murray, Ronald King
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Gordon
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Urwin, T. W.


Ogden, Eric
Roper, John
Varley, Eric G.


O'Halloran, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Oram, Bert
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wallace, George


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David


Oswald, Thomas
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Paget, R. T.
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Pentland, Norman
Steel, David



Perry, Ernest G.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 58, line 32, at end insert:
and he may direct that the authority shall not during such time as the order is in force perform any function conferred by the order on him.

5.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Campbell: Lords Amendment No. 12 deals with Clause 72 on default procedure. It clarifies something which had always been assumed. We put forward the clarification so that any possibility of misunderstanding shall be removed.
The Amendment provides that during any period in which the Secretary of State is exercising the functions of a local authority under Part II, III or IV of the Bill the authority shall not at the same time exercise any of the same functions. That is clearly right and common sense.
It had been thought that the action by the Secretary of State in rendering an authority's powers exercisable by himself would amount to a tranfer of functions and would therefore mean that the authority had no power in the matters in ques-

tion. I am advised, however, that there might be some doubt, and the Amendment makes the situation palpably clear.
Amendment No. 13 also clarifies. Where the Secretary of State has made an order rendering the functions of the local authority exercisable by him, the Amendment clarifies the position of members and officials of the local authority by placing them under a statutory duty to assist the Secretary of State in carrying out the functions.
In the last debate about the default powers in general the suggestion was made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that about three years ago when I was in Opposition I encouraged Edinburgh Corporation not to carry out an Act of Parliament. I take this early opportunity of repudiating entirely that suggestion. There was never any question of my suggesting to any authority that it should not carry out the law. My proposal was an entirely different one. I said over and over again that when we returned to office we should change that law, and that is what we did.
In the summer of 1970 we were returned to office, and one of the first Bills we introduced was the one which changed that Act. Never at any time before that had I said or suggested anything to encourage a local authority in Scotland not to carry out the law as it stood.
I should like to refer to what happened when the Transport Bill was going


through the House; it is relevant on this point. I served on the Standing Committee which considered that legislation. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was also a member, and the number of Sittings broke all records. The majority of trade and industry throughout the country were opposed to parts of the Bill, and I attended protest meetings in England as well as in Scotland on that legislation. But at no time did I or my colleagues ever suggest that when that legislation became an Act it should not be carried out. But, because of our opposition, no fewer than 23 pages of the Bill were dropped by the then Government while that Measure was going through the House, and other parts were postponed.
When we came to office, those provisions were not brought into action. But certainly at no time was there any question of my saying that the Bill when enacted should not be carried out. Therefore, I repudiate what was said by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The references by the Secretary of State both to the Transport Act, 1968, and to his activities on the earlier Bill are a kind of apologia—and an inadequate one. We know that hon. Members opposite have conspired, to the point almost of danger, in trying to undo legislation produced by the Labour Government. It is only when the Conservatives produce legislation of a character which excites a great deal of public annoyance, as they are now doing, that they seek to defend themselves in this way.
The Secretary of State is not the biggest offender in this respect, nor is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). The biggest offender is somebody who is not here at the moment, and that is the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). However, I will not go into that, I will stick to the Amendment.
I do not accept the assertion made by the Secretary of State that this Amendment is necessary. He says that he is advised that the provision is necessary to make certain that local authorities should not exercise a function which he by order has conferred upon himself. It is almost a matter of semantics. The

hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said quite sincerely that the default power would not be exercised at all if the Government could avoid it. Indeed, no Government have exercised this default power—despite all the trouble we have had in Scotland over the last 20 years when authorities may not have been considered to match up to what central Government wanted them to do. Both Conservative and Labour Governments are involved. The Labour Government first instituted the idea of default powers. Many authorities were not building and were not being fair to their own people. The default occurred among the unprogressive and unfeeling authorities.
I accept that the Government have no intention of using the default powers; they will not bring them in unless there is a complete confrontation with the local authorities. However, it will be necessary for them to bend in many ways as they assess the situation.
Why should we have an Amendment which seeks to make it absolutely certain that if a function is transferred, no part of that function can be exercised by the local authority? In other words, if the Secretary of State says, "I now direct that councillors in the burgh of so-and-so have no power to do anything in relation to housing under the terms of the Bill: I am taking over this power myself", he is directing the town clerk or any other officer or servant of the town council to act in accordance with what St. Andrew's House says. It may be that part of this function might desirably continue to be exercised by the town council. If a housing department is taken over, it may consist of two parts, one concerned with building and the other with management. Does he intend to say that he will not allow the town councillors to exert any influence on the building section of that Department? Will he say, "I will make them build houses only in accordance with what I think"?
Why do we not leave the matter in doubt so that perhaps part of the power might be exercised by local councillors? I admit that this is a marginal fear and is a matter of semantics, but this is all bound up with whether default powers will be used in a disciplinary manner. We were told in Committee that they are only an instrument of last resort and


will never in fact be used. Therefore, I suggest that we do not make these Amendments in order to ensure that the default powers are not proceeded with. We should encourage local authorities to accept the spirit and letter of the legislation rather than dragoon them into imposing arithmetical absolutes.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I query the necessity for Amendment No. 13. I do not think the Secretary of State gave a satisfactory explanation of it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: He did not give any.

Mr. Smith: I am being more than fair to him, as I always am to people who are not very good at defending themselves. The Secretary of State failed to give an explanation because it is difficult to find one on Amendment No. 13.
I am puzzled as to why Amendment No. 13 has been tabled at all. We are told in Amendment No. 12 that if a local authority is removed from the scene, then the Secretary of State will move in. If there is a vacuum of power then it is made clear that the Secretary of State will take over the functions. Then in Amendment No. 13 we see:
It shall be the duty of a local authority"
to do particular things. When one talks about "a local authority" in contradistinction to an officer or servant, one must mean presumably those who are elected to an authority.
The House is being asked to accept that a duty shall be imposed on elected members of an authority whose housing powers have been removed from them. This will mean that if the local authority has come to a decision that it does not wish to impose a rent increase, the Secretary of State will move in and take over that function. Those elected members will have to be brought back to the council chamber in order to carry out the Secretary of State's work for him.
There should be no doubt about this matter. Either the local authority should carry out this function or the Secretary of State should do so. Does the Secretary of State intend to impose sanctions on democratically elected people? Why cannot the Secretary of State stand on his own feet instead of calling on others to do the work for him?
Let us suppose a situation in which the Secretary of State exercises his default powers in terms of an increase in existing rents. I appreciate that it will be necessary for him to give orders to officials and servants of local authorities, otherwise what he intends to do will not be carried out. But what need is there to bring in the elected members at all? They have had their powers removed. Does the Secretary of State want them brought into the council chamber and compelled by law to approve motions—which would be hypocritical for them to do because if they had not opposed the Secretary of State there would be no default power there in the first place?
I hope that the Secretary of State will do what any Minister should be able to do about any piece of legislation and give a concrete example as to why the Amendment is necessary, how it will work in practice, and what will be the result of the House passing it. This House should not pass legislation without a clear idea about its impact.
We ought to construe this strictly. It is a tradition of this House that we construe penal Statutes very carefully since the liberties of the individual are involved. Similarly, taxation policy is construed strictly, albeit with more enthusiasm by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. This legislation may have penal effects on the councillors involved, and we should be very clear about it. Not only should we have an explanation in place of the usual non-explanation that we have had from the Secretary of State. We ought also to have a practical, concrete example of what it means, otherwise we may be letting our elected councillors in for a lot more than anyone has yet bargained for.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Secretary of State said that he had been successful in getting a Labour Government to drop 23 pages from one of their Bills. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I should be willing to settle for his dropping three Clauses from the present Bill, Clauses 28, 29 and 30?
We are not discussing these Clauses. However we are discussing the need for default powers. The Secretary of State has chosen not to give anything other than the technical justification for these Amendments. He may feel that that is enough. But he ought to understand that


he and his Department will need to think this one through in the likely event of some local authorities deciding not to implement parts of the Bill.
I do not feel that Amendment No. 12 is the important one. Amendment No. 13 is an additional power. It creates an additional duty. In circumstances that I can readily see occurring the Secretary of State will need to go through the machinery of declaring an authority in default, following which there will be a public inquiry when, if the local authority does not accept the instruction from the public inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman will make an order instructing the authority's officials to carry out functions on his behalf which the elected members have declared that they will not carry out. Those may be hypothetical circumstances at the moment, but they are likely to become a reality, and the Secretary of State should address his mind to them. What is more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) said, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give the House an idea of the circumstances in which he sees himself operating these powers and whether he feels that they are likely to arise.
In making it clear that, in the event of default, a statutory duty is now to be placed on officials to perform functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North omitted to point out that the Court of Session can be asked for an order to require a specific performance by officials—not the elected representatives. For that reason, I have to address myself to the circumstances in which that might arise, whether there are any, and what all of us should do about it if it should come about.
This may be correct in House of Commons terms. It may be correct even for lawyers to take a stand on these narrow technical grounds. But the Secretary of State had better get it into his head that he will have to think in terms of applying this provision to the realities of the political situation.
We have already gone over the reasons why we have to have default powers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr.

Dickson Mabon) have dealt with the general acceptance of default powers—[Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary shaking his head. He can shake it as often as he likes—

Mr. Younger: For the sake of clarity, as it will be recorded in Hansard that I shook my head, let me make it clear that I nodded my head.

Mr. Brown: In any event, the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me. I hope that he agrees with me on the next point.
This technical approach to default powers will not do. Some of us have had experience of public inquiries because of a failure to review rents, where according to the public inquiry it was proved that the failure to review rents was a failure on the part of the local authority to review its own rents and the levels that it had itself fixed.
Does not the Under-Secretary realise that he may be right to claim misrepresentation but that he fails to appreciate that local authorities will be in a new situation? They will be taken to task if they default on rents when they have not had the power to fix the rents. That is the key. The Bill lays down rent increases which will be obligatory on local authorities. It has never been done before. We are not discussing previous default powers as amended in the past. We are discussing a new period and we are insisting that local authorities not only review rents but increase them by specific amounts at specific times—

Mr. MacArthur: Not necessarily.

Mr. Brown: The Bill is specific. It requires certain amounts of rent income this year, next year and the following year until the housing account is in balance. That is a new factor confronting local authorities. If we discuss only default powers without taking other matters into account we are not "with it".

Mr. MacArthur: There are certain authorities in Scotland, notably Perth, which have run prudent rent policies. In Perth, the rent increases will be very small, and the rent rebates will be higher and wider spread than in the past. For an authority like Perth the Bill is a very good one.

Mr. Brown: I know that Perth has done very well out of it. I presume that the hon. Gentleman's local paper will be published this week, if others are not. But this is one major change that has influenced the attitude of local authorities.
Let me give some of the other changes. In the case of the major authorities, the rent increases are fixed. I do not include Perth in that category, though Perth is a wonderful city—I had better not say why, but it has something to do with a honeymoon. We are dealing not only with Perth, but with the major authorities, particularly Glasgow and Lanarkshire, which have gone on record as saying they will not implement the Bill.
6.0 p.m.
The rent increases are specified and laid down in the Bill. I do not think the Under-Secretary will disagree with that. The limitation on the rate contribution is also fixed to some extent in the housing expenditure subsidy. The Government's whole argument is that instead of £40 million going out of rates in five years, or whatever time it is, there will be only £20 million. There is now a further restriction non the freedom of a local authority to put the rate contribution into the housing account. The Minister may argue that this is long overdue. I am not disputing that point. I am merely pointing out that local authorities realise that this is another freedom which is being taken away from them. Local authorities must get into balance on their housing accounts. Hon. Members opposite might argue, and some of us might accept, that is not a bad thing to aim at, although we might argue about the speed, and so on. Nevertheless, a statutory obligation is being placed on local authorities to do something they were never required to do before.
On rebates there are four points: the rent increases, the changes in rate contribution, the requirement to have the housing revenue account organised in such a way as ultimately to get into balance, and the rebate scheme. I am not arguing whether it is better or not as good as some schemes run by local authorities. This is being laid down nationally, and an argument can be made for that; but this again is something being taken away from local authorities. Therefore, it is fatuous for the Secre-

tary of State or the Under-Secretary to come along in some kind of academic situation without realising these are some of the fundamental matters—I am not arguing about misrepresentation—that have put up the backs of local authorities.
In the wider context, we have the opposition to the Industrial Relations Act. There is also the defeat, as it were, over school milk. Local authorities are still bitter about that. In Glasgow there is the attitude towards selective schools. Again, I am not arguing about the merit or otherwise of these individual matters; I am merely indicating that on each of these different and several issues groups of local authority members feel very strongly. It may be that the councillor who feels most strongly about selective schools or school milk is not an expert on housing. However, all these matters are boiling up in local authorities against the political background in the country. I am not just talking about the dockers who are in gaol.

Mr. Frank McElhone: They are out now.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps even at this late stage the Scottish Office—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart(Mr. Edward Taylor), the lost voice of reaction, is shaking his head. I do not know why. There is some evidence that the Government do not want a confrontation. Therefore, I suggest they should pay attention to those of us who are arguing for greater flexibility in the Bill. Otherwise, the default powers will need to be used.
One is never popular in politics if one says, "I told you so." The Secretary of State tries this now and again. It does not make him the most popular person in politics to be right. I realise it is equally dangerous, but I hazard a guess that if the default powers are not used the threat of using them will be brought into play. There is no doubt about that. That is as far as I go at the moment. I cannot speak for others.
In this kind of atmosphere people are beginning to understand—I hope that even the backwoodsmen on the Government benches are also beginning to understand—that when there is a fear in people's minds, whether it be about the loss of jobs in the docks or, indeed, just change, that applies also to local


authorities in Scotland. Every major local authority is heavily involved in arguing or wondering how it will fare in the West Region, if there is a West Region. Individual councillors are thinking ahead and wondering whether they might be regional or district councillors, or possibly not even councillors at all. There is an atmosphere of uncertainty. In this kind of atmosphere it is sometimes easier for the person who makes the most militant of speeches to sound as if he or she has all the answers to the problems which many of us know are more complicated and sophisticated than the sheer militancy of a speech sometimes leads people to believe. Therefore, I beg the Minister not to underestimate the strength of feeling in the local authorities.
The Chairman of the Scottish Special Housing Association has resigned, as I understand it, on two grounds. The first is the instruction by the Government that SSHA houses should be sold. The Minister shakes his head. I will give him an opportunity to make some comment on that matter. The second ground is that there has been a rundown in the direct labour force of the SSHA. Does the Minister suggest that in the event of a local authority being in default he will use his powers to sell off council houses, even though that authority has already decided not to sell them?
The Government really must govern. I realise that sounds like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It would not be a bad thing if we had the kind of Government which would govern and say in what circumstances they would use these powers and whether they would do this or that. I suggest the selling of council houses is a factor which might make local authorities feel they should defy the Secretary of State.
I should like to refer to another matter which affects the freedom of local authorities. We have had a furore, as usual well publicised, by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart about the circular issued by Glasgow Corporation. The article in the Glasgow Herald is headed:
Taylor questions legality of leaflet.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: Hear, hear. I hope the Government will give the same prominence to their reply. Is it or is it not legal? I raised this specific point in Committee and received an assurance from the Under-Secretary that no attempt would be made to interfere with the right of local authorities to explain to their tenants the implications, as they saw them, of the Bill.

Mr. Galbraith: Surely this document does more than explain. It is a political document urging an attack on the Bill, not explaining it.

Mr. Brown: I will not go into the details of it.

Mr. Galbraith: It is just as well.

Mr. Brown: I will debate it at any time, but I do not wish to take up too much time now. I think I could have made a better job of it.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Has the hon. Gentleman read it?

Mr. Brown: I have indeed. I think it is right. In any case, why are the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) and Glasgow, Cathcart so worried? If there is so much merit and good in the Bill, why should they object to a bit of propaganda against it? At least it is factual. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen will be able to make their own speeches.
Are the Government going to tell Glasgow Corporation that this document is legal, even though they do not agree with every dot and comma in it? They must make up their minds. Do they want freedom for local authorities? They must say whether they think these default powers will rarely, if ever, be used. The Government have to make up their mind whether, even in things like this, they will niggle and tell major local authorities what they can and cannot do.
In case it has been overlooked, I draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that the English Bill provides for a fine of £400 if there is any obstruction by a local authority, an elected member of it or by an official. Why has the Secretary of State for Scotland not introduced that provision for Scotland? I am not, of course, asking that he should, but the Under-Secretary has been saying


that the Government do not want these default powers unless they are effective, and one is entitled to ask how he will discipline a local authority member who intentionally or otherwise, or perhaps even after taking a firm decision, does not implement the Bill?
What is the relevance of the statement by NALGO that it will protect any member who refuses to co-operate with officials in carrying out something on behalf of the Secretary of State? What will happen to such a person? The Under-Secretary of State said that if there are to be default powers they should be effective and there should be no loopholes. The English Bill provides for a fine of £400, but there is no mention of anything similar in the Scottish Bill. I know that circumstances are different in England, but the Government must be worried about the non-implementation argument.
I hope that I have convinced the Secretary of State and the Under-secretary of State of the feelings of some local authorities. However irrational or wrong the Government might think local authorities are in the view they take of the Bill, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is how they feel, and he had better understand that if they are angry it would be worth while trying to get some kind of agreement with them.
I speak for myself. If the Government, even at this late stage, were willing to compromise and settle for something less than £1 a week increase in October, I should be willing to use my influence with the local authorities to see whether we could get some kind of agreement. Some of my hon. Friends may not agree with me.

Mr. Lambie: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: I did not expect my hon. Friend to agree with me, but I am thinking of the ultimate effect on the people whom I represent. I shall carry out propaganda and the political battles, but I get no satisfaction from doing so if, by agreement there is any possibility of reducing some of the burdens that might be placed on the people whom I represent. I am willing to talk to the Government to see whether a compromise can be effected, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister is almost on his knees to the TUC to get some kind of—

Mr. Lambie: No surrender.

Mr. Brown: I do not like the use of that term in any circumstances. I am genuinely concerned about the Scottish Bill because it is different from the English Measure, and also because the STUC is not part of the TUC.
As my right hon. Friend said, it may be that in October the Government will find it necessary to use these default powers against local authorities, who refuse to impose rent increases in excess of anything being imposed on English council tenants. It is no good saying that rent and wage levels are different. The extra money required to come out of the pockets of tenants in Scotland may be in excess of that paid by English council tenants. I am not talking about the rent rebate element, but about those who will have to pay the full increases.
It is the height of folly for the Government to introduce these Amendments in this academic and legalistic way without understanding the realities of the political situation, and I hope that even at this late stage they will see sense.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Today and on previous days we have been discussing the responsibilities of local authorities and trade unions under the law. I think it is true to say that local authorities who accept the rule of law accept, too, that they have an obligation to obey the letter of the law, if not necessarily the spirit of it.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) referred to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend and others during the previous Government's term of office. It is one thing to say to a local authority that a law has been badly drafted, there is a loophole in it, and they should take advantage of it. It is quite different to say to a local authority that it should defy the letter and intention of the Bill. I support the Lords Amendment, because it is designed to try to close any possible loopholes. If we mean to introduce the Bill and apply it, nothing but harm can come if we leave too many legal loopholes.
The complaints made by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the activities of certain local authorities when the previous Government were in power must


be brought into perspective. It was not then a question of local authorities breaking the law, but of finding loopholes in the law which had not been seen at the time the Measure was passed because the Bill had not been drafted as tightly as hon. Gentlemen opposite intended. If we find any loopholes in this Measure and take action to close them we shall be performing a real service to the Government and, indirectly, to local authorities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) talked about uncertainty. There can be no greater uncertainty than that which results from the law being drafted in a shoddy manner and leaving obvious lopholes which local authorities can take advantage of to destroy the spirit of the legislation. These two Amendments are designed to close any possible loopholes, and for that reason they are worth making.

Mr. John Smith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would explain the purpose of Lords Amendment No. 13 as it applies to the elected member of a local authority? In what circumstances does he envisage its being implemented?

Mr. Taylor: I have my own ideas about that. No doubt my right hon. Friend could give a more authoritative statement, but two circumstances come to mind. One is the availability of records. An elected committee of a corporation or local authority has control of its own records. It may be that records not related directly to housing are necessary for the performance of the authority's housing function. A local authority could frustrate the activities of the Secretary of State or his agent by withholding those records. The important thing is that there are possible loopholes, and it is therefore better to sew them up by making the Amendments.
Having studied the Official Report of the debates in the other place, I am not clear whether the Amendment relates solely to the powers which might be taken in relation to rents, to the housing function as a whole, to some parts of the housing function, or to most parts of that function. It seems that in two debates in the other place contrary opinions were given about the possible sale of council houses. On one Amend-

ment it was said that this might be done, but that it would be under separate legislation. I should like the Minister to say whether the default powers under the Amendment will relate solely to rents, or whether they will have broader application. It would seem from my reading of the Bill and from the reports of the Lords debates on matters relating to housing that the necessary steps would have to be taken under separate legislation.
The hon. Member for Provan raised a matter relating to Amendment No. 12, which states:
and he may direct that the authority shall not during such time as the order is in force perform any function conferred by the order on him.
I see great difficulties arising in defining the area of that function in relation to the functions of other committees of the local authority. We could get no better example than the one which the hon. Member for Provan mentioned, namely, the circulation to every householder in Glasgow of a pamphlet issued by the Corporation of Glasgow about the Bill. I am not certain how that was done, but obviously ratepayers' money from the housing account was used. There is nothing in the world to stop such a pamphlet being issued by another committee of the local authority using funds from a separate vote.
I can see great dangers that under the Amendment, while a committee of a local authority might be prevented from carrying out functions it previously exercised, another committee of the same local authority might be able to perform similar functions under other legislation. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about whether it would be possible for a local authority to issue a pamphlet on the Bill, using funds from another vote and with the authority of another committee, relating possibly to the dissemination of information, advertising or something of that kind.
It cannot be stressed too strongly, certainly in my view and in the view of many fair-minded people, that the pamphlet which was issued in Glasgow was more than an information document. It appeared to contain statements of untruths. There can be no doubt about that. The opening sentence, states that


the Bill is putting up the rents of all tenants irrespective of their ability to pay. It refers to both private tenants and local authority tenants.
We have differing views about the Bill and its merits, but I cannot see that it is right, fair or just that ratepayers should be called upon to pay for what is obviously a blatant propaganda document which contains many statements which are untruths. Surely this is wrong under existing law.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I do not like the fact that we must finish these discussions by 8 o'clock. We are dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State under a default order. It is something which has already been done by a local authority that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) questions. I suggest that that is not, and cannot possibly be, in order.

Mr. Taylor: The matter was raised and talked about at considerable length by the hon. Member for Provan. It seemed, although an interesting matter, that the hon. Member was not relating it to the Amendment. I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, taking that matter as an example, whether it would be possible in future, despite the terms of Lords Amendment No. 12, flora local authority using separate funds from a separate committee to issue a pamphlet on the Bill. As the Government are taking steps under Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 to try to block any loopholes in the Bill, it is important that we should take steps to prevent abuses which involve the substantial expenditure of ratepayers' money for purposes other than the dissemination of information, which is clearly a function that is sensible and right. Obviously we have dffering views on what is relevant information, but the issuing of blatant propaganda is wrong. It should have been stopped in the past and it should be stopped in future.

Mr. William Small: This is my first contribution to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, since I was not a member of the Committee. The Secretary of State delivered his case for the Amendment in terms of esoteric mythology. As the Secretary of State is a yachts-

man, he might recognise the the highest danger point in navigation is in the Greek Sea between the two islands, Scylla and Charybdis. The essential argument is one of political identification of elected members or officials in terms of co-determination to will the political behaviour of a given party. That is what is being asked. That is what the Secretary of State actually said. I will use two Latin tags for the entertainment of hon. Members opposite. We have the regalia majora, who are the senior group, and the regalia minora, who are in these terms the supporters in making policy in any corporation.
The argument about elected representatives is that they are simply elected representatives. When one stands for local government and one is elected, what happens? Immediately one transfers the whole of one's personality. One becomes an employer. What frightens me is the identification of the uniformity of political behaviour. The exercise of default powers has a frightening aspect because the nature and the construction of the whole Bill means that under the Bill everybody in Scotland will become a Government tenant. There has never been anything I have yet seen whereby a Government fix everybody's rent and place in society. I cannot support any Amendment to strengthen the default powers which already exist and which are tough enough.

Mr. Gavin Strang: It is precisely seven weeks since we discussed default powers during the Report stage. At that time we drew attention to the fact that the Bill was different from previous Measures in the sense that it was likely that the default powers would be used. We urged the Secretary of State to think again, to drop government by confrontation and adopt a conciliatory attitude towards local authorities. What was the Secretary of State's response? What meetings has he had with local authorities to try to come to some agreement, to try to find out precisely which parts are the most objectionable?
It would appear that instead of adopting that conciliatory approach, the Secretary of State has spent his time ensuring that his officials go to great lengths to tighten up these additional powers. It seems typical of the Government's whole


approach to housing and every other issue. Where does government by confrontation get them? One would think that today of all days they would think about adopting a different approach.
The Secretary of State says that Lords Amendment No. 12 is important because the Government want to make absolutely sure, although they are taking over certain functions and are telling local authority officials that they have certain duties, that the elected councillors and the officials are carrying out their functions.
Perhaps the Secretary of State had in mind a situation in which, for example, half the computer personnel at Edinburgh Corporation were backing the Government and the other half were backing the councillors. Do the Government envisage that the night shift would be putting out rent demands based on Government assessed rents while the day shift would be putting out rent demands in line with the views of the Edinburgh Corporation Labour Group? Is that the sort of situation which the Secretary of State thinks might arise? Is that why he is ensuring that he has power to instruct officials to do what he requires? This will concern not only officials in the housing department but also computer officials, who are key figures in this exercise.
6.30 p.m.
May we take it that Lords Amendment No. 13 is designed to make clear that not only can the right hon. Gentleman instruct councillors but that local authority employees must answer to him rather than to the elected councillors? What happens if some employees decide that they are not prepared to accept this invasion of their agreed terms of employment—that they are not prepared, having been employed by Edinburgh town councillors, to be dictated to by the Secretary of State? Will they end up in gaol? Is that a possibility? Do we have an Official Solicitor in Scotland?

Mr. John Smith: No.

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) says that there is no such thing as an Official Solicitor in Scotland. Suppose that some councillors or officials have an approach to these matters similar

to that of some of the dockers and that when instructed to do something they do not do it. After all the processes have been gone through, can they go to prison? Are we to have the same sort of nonsense in this case as in the case of the dockers? Are we to have once again the law brought into disrepute, as it has been this week, or does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that this case is quite different in that the workers will not use their industrial power this time to force the Government to back down? If the right hon. Gentleman is banking on that, he should be careful.
The first time the Government put any councillor or official in gaol—indeed, it may happen as soon as they start to intervene—there will be industrial action. It will not be the first time we have had industrial action on such issues. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls his history, he will see that there have been strikes and demonstrations in Glasgow in the past on such issues. He could be creating a dangerous situation if he tried to intervene. There will be the possibility, for example, of the dustmen going on strike—and then perhaps the Lord Advocate will have to come in and get the Government off the hook just as the Official Solicitor has done in London in the case of the dockers.
When we last discussed this matter, we asked the Secretary of State to adopt a more reasonable attitude towards the local authorities. We did not ask him to climb down. We simply asked him, in the light of the local elections and of the massive opposition of the vast majority of the Scottish local authorities, to think again and at least discuss the matter with them. We have got nothing. Yet during that same period the Secretary of State for the Environment made concessions on the Housing Finance Bill dealing with England and Wales, although he could at least claim that the Conservatives are in an elected majority in England. In Scotland, on the contrary, the Conservatives are in a minority. In these circumstances one would have thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland would at least have felt obliged to discuss with the local authorities in order to try to meet to some extent the views of the majority of the people in Scotland. But the right hon. Gentleman has adopted instead the most intransigent


attitude. If he really thinks that he is going to implement these default powers and that he can win a confrontation on them, he will have to think again.

Mr. Buchan: In view of the events of this week, it is a pity that we should be operating under a guillotine on a Bill the end result of which may produce the kind of effect which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) described when he spoke of his father. Indeed, after the events of this afternoon, the situation is something like an Irish tragedy: one is never quite sure whether it is tragic or comic. The Official Solicitor has once again pulled the Government off the hook but there is no Official Solicitor in Scotland to pull them off the hook there. There should be recognition by the Government that they will get a bloody nose in Scotland as well if there is confrontation over these powers in the Bill.
The Lords Amendment would make the whole situation even worse than it is. First of all it is obscure; even the flat earther himself, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) does not understand it. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) has pointed out, Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 appear to contradict one another. I do not think they do, however. I think that the relationship between them is more complicated than the present Secretary of State can ever explain to us. I wish that the Secretary of State would stop claiming that he has discovered everything in Scotland or would stop excusing himself for everything that went wrong in the past.
For the last week hon. Members opposite have been saying that only one absolute matters, and that is the absolute of obeying the law. Yet some of them were among the most active in encouraging local authorities, if not to break the law, to look for every possible loophole in it. The Under-Secretary of State nods, as I knew he would. Hon. Members opposite have never understood the difference between immorality and legality. Legality is not absolutely the most important principle. The whole of history shows that to be so. I asked the Secretary of State earlier to apply his abstract principles to events in Germany after 1933, but he did not even

understand the question. A lot of humbug about legality has been talked during the past week. What brings the law into contempt is bad law, law that is used consciously and deliberately to create a political confrontation. Throughout history man have changed bad laws by resisting them.

Mr. Iain Sproat: But resisting electorally—that is the difference.

Mr. Buchan: They have changed bad laws by resisting them and there are more important principles than that people should obey bad laws. I challenge the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), the hon. Member for Cathcart or the Secretary of State to say that they have never broken the law.

Mr. James Dempsey: Income tax?

Mr. Buchan: I am coming to that. I challenge them to say that they have never taken a chance in parking, for example, because they knew that there would only be a small fine if they were caught. It is only if they have never at any time broken the law that they can start criticising councillors and others.

Mr. Younger: It would be helpful if we could get clear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is possible that he may again hold office in a future Government.

Mr. Sproat: Never.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gettleman ever does return to office, will he give me the absolute right to choose at that time which of the laws of the land I obey and which I do not? Will he guarantee me freedom from any form of legal penalty for whatever I may do on my own at the time?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has never understood the point. He has the absolute right to decide which laws he is going to accept, just as the nation has the absolute right to decide. The Government are creating a situation in which people, in being driven to defend their communities, are being forced into exercising the absolute right of breaking the law. Before the hon. Gentleman starts dropping abstract philosophical


questions, as he did an hour ago, he should reread his philosophy.
What the Government are doing by taking the power of making default orders is to ensure that by deterrent their malevolence is carried out. They are trying to make the elected members of a local authority and even the local officials do their dirty work for them. That is like telling the victim of the condemned cell that he not only has to tie the knot round his neck himself but that for a week beforehand he has carefully to oil the hinges of the trap. That is bound to create resistance in Scotland.
In the light of the events of the past week, with defeat after defeat from the miners, the dockers, and other workers, the Government would be wise not to undertake this confrontation in Scotland, for two reasons. The first is that it mobilises and calls into action some of the most respectable and respected members of our community. We are dealing not with tub militants but with pure respectable Scottish bailies. In Scotland there is no means for the Government to get themselves off the hook on which they are busy impaling themselves; there is nobody like the Official Solicitor. The only person who can climb down openly is the Secretary of State.
The most terrifying thing that has been said about this Amendment and its implications was enunciated by the Secretary of State for Employment. He said in a television broadcast that he regarded the law is more important than parliamentary democracy. With respect, it is not. Parliamentary democracy is the will of the people as expressed in this place. The law is merely an implement, and if the Government fashion an implement which becomes more important than the will of the people they are in trouble. The events of this week have shown that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In the proceedings on this Bill we always seem to be working against a tremendous pressure of time. The Secretary of State and his deputy always make excuses not to answer the questions they are asked. In Committee I tried to discover from the Under-Secretary how he intended to implement the Bill, and especially the default Clauses. With the bland, innocent assurance that he always presents he told

us not to become excited about the default Clauses because the Bill would leave everything exactly as it was before; no additional powers were to be taken, and it was unnecessary to go into the matter because the present Government would operate as past Governments had operated.
When the Under-Secretary was asked how he would act in confrontation with local authorities he always told us, "The question will never arise". In the seven or eight weeks after the Bill came from Committee the parliamentary draftsmen produced all kind of Amendments, both on Report and when the Bill went to the House of Lords, trying to spell out the position. When we discussed Lords Amendment No. 11 we were told that it was a technical matter, a matter of tidying up the legislation. When we raised the question of extensions to the default Clauses we were told to wait for the Amendments. We have now almost reached the end of the default Clause Amendments and we have not got an answer yet.
The Secretary of State has said virtually nothing, except that all we were doing was tidying up the position. We have asked the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary what the position would be in the case of specific local authorities and they have always refused to face the question. It the Secretary of State refers back to the proceedings on Report he will find that a number of important questions were asked.
Local authorities are not saying that they will act in contempt of the law; they are saying that they will refuse to carry out statutory responsibilities laid upon them by the electorate and the general law. They are saying that if the Secretary of State wishes to prescribe in every detail how all the housing accounts will be operated, how the rent increases will be operated and how they should treat individual tenants, the Secretary of State must be prepared to do the work himself.
Having asked the Ministers specifically for an answer and having been refused one, we must now go further and ask for assurances. Once the Bill becomes law, if local authorities say that they will not implement it, how can they be in default of their statutory responsibilities?


They are giving advance notice from 1st October that they are handing over the collection of rents to the Secretary of State, which is what he is asking for in the Bill. He is asking that powers should be taken by the Secretary of State and simply operated by the elected members of the councils as his agents.
6.45 p.m.
Local authorities will not accept this. They are handing these duties back to the Secretary of State and we must ask for assurances that in those respects no penal sanctions will be applied to them. We hope that in all these Clauses and Amendments there are no hidden default sanctions which will land them in prison. If they tell the Secretary of State exactly where they stand and there is no loss or rent revenue, there will be no question of surcharging councillors in respect of the revenue. It will have been collected late but it will nevertheless have been collected.
The Secretary of State has a duty to say where he stands in the matter. He has never made it clear where he stands in relation to local authorities and the people. From the start of the Bill he began to take the powers from elected representatives in local authorities. He is stripping them of all authority, all dignity and all respect for themselves and for the law. If they say, as many undoubtedly will, "We will not be parties to our own humiliation", the Secretary of State should be prepared to allow them the dignity and the right to exercise their freedom—the freedom with which they were elected to govern the people as members of local authorities.

Mr. Ross: We are here making law. That is the purpose of the House of Commons. We ought to try to make as wise law as possible. Within the terms of this discussion we are presuming that a local authority has already been adjudged to be in default and that the Secretary of State is exercising certain functions in respect of it.
It has been asked what functions the Secretary of State will exercise. I am surprised that anyone who was a member of the Committee on the Bill should have any doubts about it. All that anyone has to do is to read Clause 72 which says that
the Secretary of State may make an order rendering exercisable by him such functions of

a local authority under Part II, III or IV of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act"—
that is, this Measure—
as are specified in the order and such other functions of the local authority as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient…
It is not limited to any Clause of the Bill; it covers anything in relation to local authority functions that the Secretary of State deems it necessary to take.

Mr. James Dempsey: Where does he get the staff?

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend will listen I hope to deal with that point later.
The first thing I must make clear about the Lords Amendment is that the local authority has nothing to do with the taking over of its functions. The Amendment says that the Secretary of State
may direct that the authority shall not during such time as the order is in force perform any function conferred by the order on him
That provision operates whether it relates to this Bill or any other Measure which concerns the functions of local authorities that come within the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities. That is fairly reasonable. If they have said "We do not want to perform these functions", we would expect the right hon. Gentleman to take them over. It is not likely that they will be performing them.
But then we come to the next Lords Amendment. This is one of the most staggering things I have ever come across at this stage of a Bill. Certain responsibilities that have long been those of the local authorities are taken away and new duties are placed upon them, with no discretion for them—they carry them out or else. Then suddenly, on 20th July, eight months after the Bill was first printed, the Secretary of State places a new duty upon the local authorities, which takes effect when they are in default. It should be remembered that the has just sacked them and said "You will have nothing to do with this." He then says:
It shall be the duty of a local authority…to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the performance of those functions by the Secretary of State.
He has kicked the authority out, but he then says "Come back and help me." What kind of people does he think we are?

Mr. Galbraith: Decent chaps.

Mr. Ross: Exactly, and we value our decency. But this is not decent law. I should like a lawyer on the Government Front Bench to tell us exactly what all this means. What is a local authority, according to the consolidated legislation? It is the town council, not the individual members of that council. The town council must
take all reasonable steps to facilitate".
The phrase should be burnt into the minds of trade unionists, because it is straight out of the Industrial Relations Act. How does a local authority, not the individual members of the council, take all reasonable steps? Is that taken by a decision? The council has been told that it has no function to perform. Will the Secretary of State compel it to meet and to vote a particular way?
I believe that this law is nonsense. I am no lawyer. Where are the lawyers? We know the difficulties in respect of the Lord Advocate, but the Secretary of State should have had here someone learned in the law to tell us exactly what this means and whether it is practical. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. JohnSmith) is a lawyer. I do not know whether he agrees with me.

Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Ross: By definition, what the Secretary of State is concerned about is nonsense. We learnt that from the discussions in another place, because simple Johnny Raw told us. We have never got the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary to tell us how the Government will implement the provision, but we learnt it in the following way:
My Lords, I assume that he would carry out these functions through his officials with the collaboration"—
a lovely word—
of the officials of the local authority concerned.
In England a commissioner is to be put in. The Secretary of State for Scotland has no intention of putting in a commissioner. He will use the force of law, telling the local authorities to do it and, putting them in default if they do not.
We learnt in the House of Lords, again from simple Harry, that the Government

would be able to apply to the Court of Session to make this latest duty effective. First the local authority is in default, so the Government place a new duty on it, and if it does not carry it out to their satisfaction they take it to the Court of Session. What on earth are we coming to when we have all this paraphernalia of default powers? The Government will never use them. I sincerely hope that some of my hon. and learned Friends and learned Conservative Members will examine this matter.
Perhaps the Secretary of State is afraid because he is not the employer of the officials he wants to use, because their employer is the local authority. He is afraid that the local authority will tell them not to collaborate. I do not think they will. What he is equally afraid of is that the officials will not feel themselves fully free, because they still have to live with the local authority after his order has expired. The Secretary of State will create all sorts of difficulties within local government, difficulties that will last much longer than his default order. I never thought he was such a foolish man as to race into confrontation in this way when he could have accepted the measure of compromise that we offered in Committee and on Report. He has made his own difficulties, and this kind of law will not save him. I doubt very much whether he could pin this new duty on any local authority.
What a time to place a new duty on a local authority, at this stage of the Bill's consideration! On the next Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will say that the local authorities have known all about the Bill for a long time. They have not, because it is still being amended. We have another 10 Amendments relating to the rebate scheme and the rent allowance scheme in which changes are made.
Our case has been made, and the Government have made no case. They have failed to come clean with the people of Scotland and the local authorities and individual councillors. The Secretary of State, too, has duties and responsibilities. He takes them under this provision. Default power means that he exercises powers. How will he exercise them? The last time I asked him that, he said that the Bill was not yet law. But the same right hon. Gentleman says that the local authorities should have made all


their preparations even though the Bill is not law. I challenge him to tell us what he will do and how he will exercise the powers.
We have heard about the possibility of a £400 fine on an English local authority. It could be even higher in Scotland because of the introduction of the Court of Session. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what are the penal sanctions in the Court of Session. I remind him of what was said by his noble Friend the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place. He is the Minister of State, Scottish Office—Heaven help us. The noble Lord said:
This statutory duty can be enforced, if necessary, by an application to the Court of Session for an order for specific performance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1972; Vol. 333, c. 921, 928.]
What is the limit of the penalties in the Court of Session in respect of this new duty that has been suddenly imposed under default powers that will never be used?
The Secretary of State knows—his officials should have told him by now, if they are in this world—what faces us in respect of this legislation. We have warned the Government time and again. I started by saying "We are making law here. Let us make wise law". This is not wisdom. This is blind folly.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
As I said earlier, these two Amendments do not propose changes. They simply qualify what was already assumed to be in the Bill, and this has been agreed by some who have spoken from the Opposition benches during the debate.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked for legal advice from the Government about whether it would be practicable to put this into effect. He referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate having to depart suddenly. It is fair that I should say that he has had to go at short notice because of serious family illness; otherwise he would have been present and able to deal with these points. But I assure the House that he has advised me that it is practicable.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) reinforced what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in the

last debate, which was a very general debate about the default procedure. That was that we hope that this procedure will never be needed. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped it would never be needed. So do we.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) indicated that he thought that the Amendments were not necessary. He felt that the Bill was clear already in this respect. We have decided that it should be doubly clear. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was a requirement to call meetings of councils. There is no question of calling a council meeting to discuss and approve policies or decisions when the Secretary of State has taken over these functions; but co-operation might be required in order that information could be made available to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member also asked for an example of a situation which might arise. An authority might, for example, say that although the officials were carrying out the functions, as required, they would no longer provide the office accommodation or services to enable the officials to carry on. This is a possibility. It is is not probable, but this is where the councillors come in. It is a possibility of a case in which it would be not taking the steps required for the performance of the functions which the Secretary of State had taken over.

Mr. John Smith: I did not imagine that we should be taken so far into the drafted to allow the Secretary of State's examples. But if his justification is information, why is the Clause not directed to allow the Secretary of State to recover all relevant records pertaining to the housing matters of a local authority? Second, if the Secretary of State envisages some concealing of information, why does not he make a requirement upon councillors to divulge information? Does he seriously think that councillors carry in their heads things which are not available in the council offices? What is the real purpose of these Amendments? I cannot imagine that it is what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Campbell: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he said that he did not think that the Amendments were necessary and that this was already clear. None the


less, we felt that it should be spelled out. I have given the hon. Gentleman an example of a situation which could arise. I hope that it never would. But the hon. Gentleman asked for an example and I have given one.
The hon. Member for Greenock queried Amendment No. 12. Here we have the old question which arises in Scottish debates so often, the difference between "may" and "shall". It is here "may" and, therefore, not something that inevitably need happen. Furthermore, the term "function" in this context need not be construed as widely as the hon. Gentleman implied. For example, it could be related to a relatively small executive function, for example, a letting.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) asked for an example, and I have answered that point. He also raised the question of the Chairman of the Scottish Special Housing Association and his resignation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way for a second?

Mr. Campbell: I must move on because we do not have much time. I have tried to answer points and I have given way already.

Dr. Mabon: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes on to the Scottish Special Housing Association, we did not hear what he said a short while ago. He same "some minor functions, such as" and then we did not hear it. Will he explain a little more?

Mr. Campbell: There could be minor functions and not major functions.

Dr. Mabon: Such as?

Mr. Campbell: The letting of an individual house could be a minor matter which comes up, as well as the major matters with which councillors and officials have to deal.
The hon. Member for Provan raised rather an important question, the resignation of the Chairman of the SSHA. Since the Chairman became the treasurer of Glasgow Corporation I had realised that he might feel it necessary to resign because he might not find the two appointments running together compatible. But he did not do so for some months, and

suddenly the other day he decided to submit his resignation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Only he can answer that. As I made clear in my reply, in which I accepted his resignation, the points he made in his letter were wrong. The SSHA was not under instruction to sell its houses. The management council of the Association is the responsible authority and it reached its own decision in the knowledge of Government policies. It was also completely wrong to say that the programme—

Mr. Buchan: That was a good one.

Mr. Campbell: —of the SSHA is being run down. It is being enlarged by considerably more overspill houses and by building in support of the North Sea oil developments.

Dr. Mabon: Dr. Mabon rose—

Mr. Campbell: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I like giving way as often as possible, but I must move on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) inquired which functions of officials would be covered by Amendment No. 13. The Secretary of State can exercise only the functions specified in the order he makes. In practice these would be under Parts II, III and IV of the Bill together with any other housing management functions and other functions necessary to fulfil the requirements of the Bill. My hon. Friend also asked—putting a rather interesting example from the past—to what funds or accounts might leaflets be charged. In his speculation, my hon. Friend exhibited his usual fertile imagination. But the range of possibilities he mentioned demonstrates the need to ensure that officials and members take all reasonable steps to facilitate the performance of functions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was making comparisons with the English Bill and indicating that the rent provisions of the English Bill would be preferable to those of the Scottish Bill.

Dr. Mabon: No.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East must be the only


Scottish Member in the House who believes that. The hon. Member was indicating that the Scottish system would not be as good as the English one. In Committee on the English Bill some English Members made it clear that they would have preferred our system.

Mr. Strang: There must be a limit to the degree of distortion which the Secretary of State is capable of. The one point I made was that, since we last discussed the matter in the House, the rent increases which tenants in England and Wales have had to face in many conurbations had been substantially less than had been expected. Everyone knows that to that extent the English Department has compromised. The English Minister has preferred to compromise to head off the massive non-implementation campaign. We have not had a similar response from the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is all that I said.

Mr. Campbell: That is exactly the point. The English had a fair rent system, a different one from us. It has always been clear that where some English local authorities had rents near the fair rent level to start with the rents would not necessarily have to rise by the maximum. If the hon. Gentleman cares to compare the average rent in one

of those local authority areas—[Interruption.] This is the most important point. This is why the hon. Gentleman did not say it. He did not talk about the rents which were being paid; that is the one thing he did not mention. He said that under the English system there was to be something preferable to the Scottish system. He carefully omitted to mention the rents which were being paid. He will find that for comparable houses the rents in those areas are two or three times the rents being paid in Scotland. Would he prefer rents in Scotlandimmediately to be doubled or trebled in one year?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Campbell: Of course he did not. The hon. Gentleman said that the English system was preferable to ours. The hon. Gentleman has just said it again for our benefit. The House will recognise that the Scottish system of pooled historic costs and true rents is of benefit to Scotland and different from the English system.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 266.

Division No. 325.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bullus, Sir Eric
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Dykes, Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Archer, Jeffery (Louth)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Chirstopher
Farr, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fell, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Churchill, W. S.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fidler, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cockeram, Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Benyon, W.
Cooper, A. E.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Fortescue, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Foster, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Crowder, F. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gardner, Edward


Bray, Ronald
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gibson-Watt, David


Brewis, John
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Goodhart, Philip


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Goodhew, Victor


Bryan, Sir Paul
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N.&amp;M)
Drayson, G. B
Gower, Raymond


Buck, Antony






Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grieve, Percy
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Rost, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Madel, David
Scott, Nicholas


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Sir Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Simeons, Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Soref, Harold


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Speed, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernle
Stainton, Keith


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hornby, Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sutcliffe, John


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morrison, Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford Dr. Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborn, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Peel, John
Waddington, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Kinsey, J. R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Knox, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, Jerry


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawilnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmond, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


Luce, R. N.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian



MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Hamish Gray and


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke 


NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm,Northfield)


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allen, Scholefield
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cohen, Stanley


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Concannon, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.
Dalyell, Tam


Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil
Darling, Rt. Hn. George







Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lambie, David
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Henry
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, David


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Torney Tom


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward
Urwin, T. W.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden,"Brian (B'ham, All Saints)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter



John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Hamilton and


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Donald Coleman

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 58, line 35, at end insert:
(4C) It shall be the duty of a local authority, any of whose functions the Secretary of State is exercising by virtue of an order under subsection (4A) above, and any officer or servant of such an authority, to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the performance of those functions by the Secretary of State.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment—[Mr. Gordon Campbell].

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 265.

Division No. 326.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Farr, John
Kirk, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Astor, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lamont, Norman


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batstord, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bell, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fox, Marcus
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Benyon, W.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Luce, R. N.


Biggs-Davison, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Boscawen, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Phillip
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Bray, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brewis, John
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maude, Angus


Buck, Antony
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Burden, F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cary, Sir Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernle


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clegg, Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cockeram, Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles


Cooke, Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar


Cordle, John
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Costain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Onslow, Cranley


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dean, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Dixon, Piers
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peel, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Dykes, Hugh
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kaberry. Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis




Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Raison, Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Soref, Harold
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Redmond, Robert
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Spence, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, Dame Irene


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Weatherill Bernard


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Sutcliffe, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rost, Peter
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Royle, Anthony
Temple, John M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Woodnutt, Mark


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Worsley, Marcus


Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Scott-Hopkins, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sharples, Sir Richard
Trew, Peter
Mr Hamish Gray and


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Simeons, Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.



NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Huckfield, Leslie


Albu, Austen
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Allen, Scholefield
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnes, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunn, James A.
John, Brynmor


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, Tom
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Evans, Fred
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry
Judd, Frank


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foley, Maurice
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Michael
Lamond, James


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ford, Ben
Latham. Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cant, R. B.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leonard, Dick


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Golding, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McBride, Neil


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William
McElhone, Frank


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hilton, W. S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Howell, Denis (Small Health)
Marks, Kenneth







Marquand, David
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Marsden, F.
Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Pentland, Norman
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Perry, Ernest G.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mayhew, Christopher
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Prescott, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mendelson, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Mikardo, Ian
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Millan, Bruce
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, E.)
Tinn, James


Milne, Edward
Richard, Ivor
Tomney, Frank


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


Molloy, William
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Tuck, Raphael


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Murray, Ronald King
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


Oakes, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Ogden, Eric
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Oram, Bert
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitehead, Phillip


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Oswald, Thomas
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Paget, R. T.
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Palmer, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. James Hamilton and


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Pavitt, Laurie
Steel, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 81

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 64, leave out lines 35 to 38.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The provision for a commencement order was incorporated in the Bill on Report in this House. However, on Report in another place, it was deleted but amidst, I think I can safely say, some confusion about what was being decided. Obviously there was confusion on both sides of another place because the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment called against it. However, that is a matter for their Lordships. The fact is that the provision is needed to assist local authorities by giving them as much time as possible to prepare for the implementation of the Bill.
During the debates in this House, hon. Members have expressed concern about the amount of notice and time which Scottish local authorities will have. This

provision introduces flexibility, which hon. Members have asked for, and I cannot imagine, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will wish to withdraw that flexibility. Therefore, I hope that something which happened in another place, as a result of mishap, will be put right.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not understand what the Secretary of State means when he talks about confusion. I cannot remember when we asked for what is provided in the three lines which the Government want to restore.

Mr. Campbell: Hon. Members have many times said that local authorities would not have enough time to implement the Bill if it were left as it was. We took action on Report to deal with this matter. Hon. Members opposite did not oppose or vote against it; it was accepted. It was something which hon. Members wanted.

Dr. Mabon: Let us get this matter right. The Bill becomes law a month after it has received the Royal Assent. Am I wrong in saying that?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Dr. Mabon: Perhaps the Secretary of State will take the matter a stage further. The three lines which were deleted in another place allow the Secretary of State


to bring certain provisions of the Bill into effect sooner than one month after it gets the Royal Assent. I do not think there are any provisions in the Bill which we are keen to have in operation two or three weeks sooner, let alone four weeks. I agree that one must not look a gift horse in the mouth, but this is carrying absurdity a little too far. If it had been proposed to delete the previous three lines, I could perhaps understand the importance of the matter, but what we are discussing is marginal.
Why should my hon. Friends and I have to refer to these matters and then get a reply from the Secretary of State? Why cannot he tell us now whether most of the Bill becomes operative one month from the time that it gets the Royal Assent?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not my hon. Friend aware that since the Government took office Acts have not meant anything? Has he not heard that the dockers have been released? The Government introduce Measures one day and twist them to suit themselves the next.

Dr. Mabon: I am glad my hon. Friend emphasised that, because that is exactly my hope, that we will not allow this Motion and that we agree with the Lords rather than disagree with them, and that we take out these three lines.
I cannot see the usefulness of these three lines. I do not think the Secretary of State has made a case for why these three lines ought to be restored. I quite agree that the noble lord, Lord Polwarth, in another place, got confused, and I agree that he was muddled by his own Whips. I quite agree he called the wrong phrase—

Mr. David Steel: I really must protest at the use of this sort of phrase—"muddle", "confusion". The noble Lord is a constituent of mine and I think I am entitled to object to these phrases. The fact is—and the hon. Gentleman should appreciate this—that the noble Lord is a man of much more flexibility of mind than any Member of his side in this House and at the end of the debate he accepted the forcefulness and persuasiveness of the arguments for the Amendment and decided to accept it.

Dr. Mabon: We all know that the success of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) in this House of Commons depends on having a large number of muddled constituents, but I do not exempt Lord Polwarth from the generality of the confusion of the Borders in that regard. I must say that we must not attack every Borderer, because, after all, the Whips in another place got confused as well.
The Secretary of State is very anxious to blame one of my noble Friends in another place, but I must protest, for this was an error of the Government, and now the Secretary of State is having to redeem what he thinks was an error and redeem three lines of the Bill lost through the sheer incompetence and neglect of muddled persons.
That being so the Secretary of State ought to tell us why these three lines are important. He has not done so. All he has done from a seated position—he does not like interjections applied to him from a seated position—is to dissent from my proposition that the bulk of the Bill comes into operation within one month. This so-called flexibility Clause allows parts to come into operation before one month. That is my understanding. I am open to correction, although I am not a muddledheaded person and I do not vote Liberal or Conservative. The Secretary of State ought to reply at this juncture, because this matter is very important.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State would have taken advantage of this Lords Amendment however dubious its origins may have been. I genuinely believe that if we were deferring action of certain provisions in this Bill we would find that the irritation and resentment felt by the people would be much less, and surely it is in the interests of our country that we should not be divided any more than we are at present divided, and that we should bring people together, and this Lords Amendment could have been so used. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman regards it only as an error to be corrected.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I would rather put it another way. Would the right hon. Gentleman, when replying to the debate, confirm that there is no flexibility, there is no power in Clause 81, or, indeed, any of the Clauses, by which


he can postpone operation of the Bill by more than one month?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will reply to the questions, by leave of the House.
I assumed that these provisions had been digested by the House when they were with us before. They were not then dissented from. I nodded when thehon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked me. I thought that would be confirmation for him and that I would not need to intervene again. I indicated with my head that he was right, that he was correct, that the Bill did not necessarily have to wait for a month before entering into effect because this provision allows the Secretary of State to bring it in before that and thereby give the local authorities a longer period for preparation, which was what hon. Members on the other side of the House had been asking for.
7.45 p.m.
That is the effect of these words. For some reason, Lord Hughes sought to take them out in the other place and if there was a muddle, as I pointed out, it was also Lord Hughes who was a party to it because by voice he rejected his own Amendment.

Dr. Mabon: No.

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the representation of the party opposite in the House of Lords does not depend upon people who are muddled. So there was what I described as some confusion. I do not think there is an issue on the substance between the two sides of the House.
Although the noble Lord put down an Amendment, presumably it was a probing Amendment to find out what the effect of this passage in the Bill was, but it was one which was in the direction of meeting points that had been made from the other side of the House about the shortness of time local authorities would have had to prepare after the Bill has come into effect. I would hope that this provision would be acceptable to both sides of the House and that something which was admittedly a mishap in the other House should now be put right.

Mr. Ross: I am fascinated by the explanation of what I continue to call

the Polwarth muddle. There is no doubt at all that he got up and confessed that he voted "Content". He admitted he had been wrong.
When one puts down an Amendment one hopes that the Amendment will be carried. My noble Friends in another place took the opportunity to ensure that their Amendment was carried. It is no good the Secretary of State saying people put down Amendments and do not really mean them.
After all, although this thing was first put in this House without any demur, on Report we were acting under the guillotine, and under the guillotine this was not discussed at all. So it will be, it seems, with these Lords Amendments. At 8 o'clock they will be put. We should probably like to vote against a number of them, but let it not be thought, because we do not vote against them, that we support them all. That is an error into which the Secretary of State fell.
Let us look at the merits of these few lines. The Secretary of State says that he had had drawn to his attention—he was quite right—in respect to the implementation of the Bill and the starting of the Bill, that there was a certain measure of impracticability and difficulty about them because they did not give much time.

Mr. MacArthur: Why?

Mr. Ross: I am in the middle of my speech. I have not ended yet, but I do not expect that I shall ever be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman about anything.
What we were discussing was words put into the Clause which said
Except as otherwise expressly provided, this Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date on which it is passed.
Of course, one of the expressly provided dates, the earliest one, is 1st October. It is from 1st October that the new rent structure is to be applied—the most important date in the whole Bill. We constantly drew attention to the Government point of view that as things were going, and with the congestion of business in this House, even with the Government advantage of the guillotine, after Committee there would be Report, thereafter there would be Third Reading, thereafter the Bill had to go to another


place, then it had to come back to us and obviously, if we took into account
one month beginning with the date on which it is passed
there would not be very much time left for the local authorities.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by bringing the Act into operation earlier it gives more time, I do not know where his logic is. It shortens the time rather than lengthens it. We have been told that the local authorities have had since November for preparation.
We suggest that the Secretary of State should forget all about the retrospective application of rent increases which are supposed to start in October to two months before the Bill becomes law, so that £24 has to be raised in respect of every council house in Scotland, although the Bill does not become operative until 1st October. The view taken by the Secretary of State when we challenged him to tell us how he would exercise his duty was that there was time enough for that when the Bill became law. There are many local authorities who take the view that there is time enough to start implementing it when it becomes law. We suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should forget the penalty of the rent increase for the first half year. It is unjust to squeeze into seven months rent increases that apply over the whole year so that there will be a doubling up, an increase of £1 per week, for people who exercise their right to wait until the Bill becomes law. The local authority could have started to implement the Bill as it stood one month after it became law.
The Secretary of State has always said that the Bill would be passed in plenty of time, but with all the administrative work, the decisions that have to be taken and the meetings that will have to be held by the local authorities when they resume after the summer the local authorities will be unable to do it through no fault of their own and they will be in default. How does the Secretary of State get out of that? He gets out of it not by meeting the practical difficulties and the hardships but by a trick. He says, "Thanks for telling us of the difficulty; we will slip something in." The other provisions in the Bill to which no dates are attached and which will

have to be exercised to make the preparations will become law within about two days. The local authorities will not have more time but the Secretary of State will have a justification for saying that the provisions are now in force, and so the local authorities will go into default more quickly.
If we had had time, we would have debated this, but even on Report we were under the guillotine, as we are now. We have reached Lords Amendment No. 14 and we have to get to Lords Amendment No. 34. Because of mistakes made by the Scottish Office there are two—Nos. 5 and 9—which should not be there at all. All the other Amendments on which we wish to comment and against which we wish to vote we have not had an opportunity to discuss.
On this Amendment we should do justice to the belated accession of wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who obviously changed his mind, having been persuaded by my noble Friend Lord Hughes. What their Lordships decided is right, and the Amendment should be allowed to stand. It is wrong to insult their Lordships further by saying that we disagree with them. We have already corrected their grammar; why should we now throw out this valuable Amendment?
Under his default powers the Secretary of State takes unto himself the power to change the whole of the Bill. I hope that in changing the whole Bill when he puts any local authority into default he will bear in mind our advice to him to waive rent increases for 1971–72. I do not know whether he will give us an answer on how he will exercise his power. This is his Official Solicitor—his only way out. We have sought at every stage to avoid confrontation and to tell him of the follies and unfairness of the Bill. The throwing out of the Amendment will make matters worse. An official in the Scottish Office has probably persuaded him to be clever, but there will be no more time between now and October no matter what we do with the Bill. By rejecting the Amendment the Government are bringing into force provisions which would otherwise not have come into force for a month, and they justify that by saying that they have not enough time. By bringing the provisions into force earlier the right hon. Gentleman is not giving


any more time; he is giving himself more time for his arguments about default.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think again. If we sit quietly perhaps the same mistakes will be made as were made in another place. I notice that the Secretary of State's enunciation was careful when he moved—
That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Can he always trust his Whips?

Mr. MacArthur: Always.

Mr. Ross: They may trip up on this one. The Amendment is right, and it is unfair of the Secretary of State to disagree with it. He has given us very little during the passage of the Bill. On

Division No. 327.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haselhurst, Alan


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hastings, Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dean, Paul
Havers, Michael


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hayhoe, Barney


Awdry, Daniel
Dixon, Piers
Heseltine, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Higgins, Terence L.


Balniel, Lord
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hiley, Joseph


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hornby, Richard


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Benyon, W.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Boscawen, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fidler, Michael
James, David


Bowden, Andrew
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jessel, Toby


Brewis, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fortescue, Tim
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Foster, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bruce-Gardyne,J.
Fox, Marcus
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bryan, Paul
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kimball, Marcus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gardner, Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Lamont, Norman


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gorst, John
Lane, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Churchill, W. S.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Clegg, Walter
Grieve, Percy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cockeram, Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cooke, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Longden, Gilbert


Cooper, A. E.
Gurden, Harold
Loveridge, John


Cordle, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Luce, R. N.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cormack, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
MacArthur, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McCrindle, R. A.


Critchley, Julian

this occasion at least he might take the advice that was given to him.

I know that we are under the guillotine, and I hope that the Under-Secretary has learned his lesson from the last time he tried to take advantage of us by wasting time until his hon. Friends came back—that was on Derby Day.

Mr. MacArthur: Filibuster.

Mr. Ross: We certainly agree with the Lords in the Amendment.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Notes 265.

McLaren, Martin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pink, R. Bonner
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McMaster, Stanley
Pounder, Rafton
Sutcliffe, John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Madel, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tebbit, Norman


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Raison, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Marten, Neil
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mather, Carol
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maude, Angus
Redmond, Robert
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Trew, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Moate, Roger
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Money, Ernle
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Monro, Hector
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper
Rost, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Charles
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Mudd, David
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Murton, Oscar
Scott,Hopkins, James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Neave, Airey
Sharples, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Normanton, Tom
Simeons, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Osborn, John
Soref, Harold
Worsley, Marcus


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Parkinson, Cecil
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Peel, John
Stanbrook, Ivor



Percival, Ian
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)



Peyton, Rt. Hn. John




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Allen, Scholefield
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Foley, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tam
Galpern, Sir Myer


Barnes, Michael
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Ginaburg, David (Dewsbury)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Gourlay, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dormand, J. D.
Hamling, William


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Driberg, Tom
Harper, Joseph


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield )


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Hilton, W. S.


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hooson, Emlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Horam, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ellis, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
English, Michael
Howell, Denis (Small Hea h)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Fred
Huckfield, Leslie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ewing, Henry
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)









Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sandelson, Neville


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hunter, Adam
Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Janner, Greville
Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Millan, Bruce
Sillars, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Milne, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Mitchell, Ft. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Small, William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Molloy, William
Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, Ivor


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Steel, David


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda. W.)
Murray, Ronald King
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kaufman, Gerald
Ogden, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kelley, Richard
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lambie, David
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lamond, James
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Latham, Arthur
Orme, Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Padley, Walter
Tinn, James


Leonard, Dick
Paget, R. T.
Tomney, Frank


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tuck, Raphael


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Urwin, T. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Varley, Eric G.


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin


Lomas, Kenneth
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Loughlin, Charles
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Weitzman, David


McBride, Neil
Prescott, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McCartney, Hugh
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Philip


McGuire, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Mackenzie, Gregor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mackie, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Marquand, David
Rose, Paul B.



Marsden, F.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rowlands, Ted

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Eight o'clock, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to designate the Lords Amendments Nos. 15 to 29 and 32, as being the Lords Amendments which appeared to him to involve questions of Privilege.

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those so designated by Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER—[Mr. Gordon Campbell]—put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day—and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in each

of the Lords Amendments designated by Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER—[Mr. Gordon Campbell]—put severally, pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to [with Special Entries.]

Ordered,

That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Bruce Millan, Mr. William Ross and Mr. George Younger nominated members of the Committee; that three be the quorum; and that they withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Committee withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments, reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN HARBOURS

Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are also discussing Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, after 'persons', insert:
'whilst himself retaining a majority of the equity holding in any concern constituted so to do',
and Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 11, at end insert:
'(6) Any public company whom the Secretary of State authorises under subsection (1) of this section shall be a United Kingdom registered company and a condition of the contract so negotiated will be that preference be given to United Kingdom suppliers in the supply of equipment required'.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas: The prime intention of these Amendments is to ensure as far as possible that the development of facilities in the harbours of refuge at present owned by the Secretary of State is kept within the ownership and control of the Secretary of State himself.
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to delete the reference to other authorised persons to develop, maintain and manage. Its effect would be to leave this development in the hands of the Secretary of State. I can see good reason for the Secretary of State not wishing in person to develop these harbour facilities himself. I readily acknowledge that that is a possibility, although the right hon. Gentleman owns and controls them at present.
What I imagine to be envisaged in the Bill is a large expansion of activities in this harbour area. What I imagine will be undertaken is a situation at Peterhead where we might be trying to out-Stavanger Stavanger; in other words, the facilities that are built up should be comparable with those of that Norwegian harbour.
If the Secretary of State does not want to keep the development in his exclusive control, it is to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that any organisation with which he wishes to be associated for development purposes will be controlled by him. That is why it is suggested in Amendment No. 2 that the Secretary of State should retain a majority of the equity holding in any concern constituted so to do. This may not be correct legal terminology, but when the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture replies I hope he will be able to give reasons why, if the Secretary of State is to divest himself of the ownership of property and development in this area, he should not himself participate in the equity of any concern that is set up to develop the harbour of refuge at Peterhead.
Amendment No. 6 takes up some of the arguments used by the Secretary of State in his speech at the weekend when he indicated that in the development of North Sea oil Scottish companies and United Kingdom companies were now moving in to get a much higher share than hitherto of the production and the general facilities necessary for the companies which are engaging in exploration and production on the Continental Shelf. The Amendment specifies that any public company authorised by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be a United Kingdom registered company.
This is quite important. If the Secretary of State is to use public money to build up the infrastructure in the harbour, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that any profits flowing from that investment of public money are kept within the orbit of the United Kingdom in the form of the distribution of dividends and, secondly, in terms of taxation.
A further provision may make it quite difficult for the Secretary of State, but it is in line with what ought to be the right hon. Gentleman's own thinking. It is that any company getting the benefit of the facilities in the harbour of refuge should give preference to United Kingdom suppliers of equipment. The Secretary of State does not have an instrument directly under his control. However, I tabled another Amendment, which unfortunately has not been selected, to empower the Secretary of State to make use of an instrument that he has at one


stage removed, namely, the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation. In a foreword to the report "Opportunity 1972", the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry indicates:
In its work of providing attractive and highly competitive premises, the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation has served Scotland and industry well.
That is a very good statement. In its 35 years' existence I should think that would be a truism. Therefore, if the Secretary of State requires an instrument, will he look, in terms of the development of facilities, directly to the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation as, so to speak, his first port of call?

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for the way he moved the Amendment. What he said underlined much of the genuine concern on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the development at Peterhead should be seen to take place in the best possible way not only for Peterhead but for the economy of Scotland as a whole. We debated these matters at considerable length in Committee, and I am glad that we should return to them on the Floor of the House tonight.
Amendment No. 1 would have the effect of restricting to the Secretary of State, as harbour authority, the power to carry out any developments and would not allow him to employ agents to carry them out on his behalf.
I make no apology for repeating the arguments I used in Committee. I have considered this matter closely in the light of views expressed in Committee. Because of the situation at Peterhead where changes and new developments are rapidly taking place and new situations are arising and will continue to arise which it is difficult with any certainty to foresee or to legislate for at this stage, it is essential that the Secretary of State should maintain as great a flexibility as possible in his powers concerning development there.
Special situations could arise where there would be advantages in the Secre-

tary of State being able to authorise a user of the harbour, for example, to undertake certain developments. There could be various reasons, and I will instance two: either because of the availability of special expertise on the part of one of these bodies who might be using the harbour, or because in particular circumstances there might be economic advantages in a certain user of the harbour undertaking the developments. It is therefore correct, sensible, and realistic to maintain this flexibility so that the Secretary of State may authorise a user or another to act as agent on his behalf.
I turn now to Amendment No. 2 which relates to the Secretary of State
retaining a majority of the equity in any concern
that might operate and develop the facilities in the harbour on his behalf. The hon. Gentleman appreciated and said that in certain ways technically the Amendment might not be correct. It seems to be founded on the assumption either that any person who might be authorised to undertake the development, maintenance or management of the harbour would be constituted as a company with an equity shareholding, or that such a company would be set up jointly with the Secretary of State and that he would retain a majority shareholding. As drafted, the Amendment would be defective if that was its purpose. I will not dwell on that point. I must advise the House that it is a further restriction on the Secretary of State if he had this particular power. For the reasons I have already given, we wish to keep maximum flexibility for the Secretary of State without putting special conditions and obligations on him.
Perhaps I might elaborate further by referring to developments that take place elsewhere in analogous situations. I am sure the House would agree that a harbour authority, such as Aberdeen, should not necessarily be required to have a majority equity shareholding in any company which built a warehouse in the harbour. If we are asking the Secretary of State to obtain a majority equity shareholding in a company in this instance, it is fair to look elsewhere to see whether this kind of restriction is put on a harbour authority where that authority


is not the secretary of state. Whilst appreciating the motives behind these two Amendments, I feel that they put an unnecessary restriction on the Secretary of State.
Whilst I am not happy with the detail of the two Amendments and cannot therefore recommend them to the House, at the same time I understand the concern behind them—namely, that adequate control should be exercised by the Secretary of State over developments which he might delegate to be undertaken by authorised persons. I repeat the assurance given in Committee, that if the Secretary of State, as harbour authority, should authorise any developments such as might be envisaged, it is his intention to retain control over the design and construction of those developments and over the harbour and its operation.
I believe that assurance meets the spirit behind the Amendments without writing in the legal restrictions which they would place on the freedom of action of the Secretary of State over the operation of the harbour so long as he is the harbour authority. For those reasons I could not recommend the Amendment to the House.
My right hon. Friend and I have considerable sympathy with the aim of Amendment No. 6 which seeks to ensure that British industry is given every opportunity to provide the industrial equipment required by the oil companies, but I do not feel that a Bill of this nature is a proper vehicle for this purpose. There would be no objection to the suggestion that any company authorised by the Secretary of State should be registered in the United Kingdom, but the House must remember that for North Sea oil exploration some types of foreign specialist equipment may be required because there is no British equivalent. One has to bear that kind of technical but practical point in mind. Even if the equipment could be supplied by British manufacturers, it would have to be demonstrated to the oil company that the British goods could be delivered on time.
8.30 p.m.
Oil companies generally are aware of the need to give British firms a fair chance to provide the equipment they need, and the Government are watching the situation very carefully to ensure that British firms get that chance but, as a

trading nation—and let us not forget that is what we are—it is not proper for us to lay down as a condition of any authorisation special preference for British goods. In this as in other spheres, it is up to British industry to prove, as I hope it will—and many firms in Scotland and the United Kingdom generally are doing just this—that it is capable of meeting the challenge of the specialist needs of oil companies. As recently as last weekend my right hon. Friend spoke about the opportunities for British manufacturers resulting from oil exploration on the Continental Shelf, and the Government are watching the situation very carefully to see that the oil companies give British firms an opportunity to provide the goods they need.
Analogous to what I said about the provision of equipment, it is the Government's intention, in considering which commercial user should be authorised to undertake the developments or to lease harbour facilities, to take account of the contribution which that company has made or is planning to make to the economy of the country by strengthening our balance of payments and by providing for the growth of industry and employment.
In the way I have described, and in what I have said about the Government's approach in deciding who should be authorised to develop or lease facilities at Peterhead harbour, I think I have shown that we are meeting the spirit of the Amendments. I therefore believe that it is unnecessary to put them into legislative form in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. For those reasons I ask the House not to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In principle, I do not believe that those who have taken no part in the Committee proceedings upstairs should take up the time of the House when the measure in question comes on to the Floor of the Chamber. I make as my excuse for intervening the fact that I should like to have been on the Committee but unfortunately it coincided with the Finance Bill in which I had a continuous and sustained interest. I therefore excuse myself on that ground.
I should like to declare a constituency interest. I cannot talk with any knowledge of Peterhead, but there is a situation


developing in the Queens ferry area which is not entirely dissimilar. I refer to the giant plans of BP for a tanker farm in the area of Dalmeny which will be discussed in detail in Edinburgh this weekend. The plans will be known to the Department.
The Under-Secretary says that the Secretary of State will authorise the user of the harbour to undertake development. I shouldlike to be a bit clearer about that authorisation as it could affect the south bank of the Forth. The hon. Gentleman gave as his criteria that, first, perhaps expertise would be forthcoming and, secondly, it might be more profitable. Both those considerations are important. However, we must reflect carefully on how a Government Department looks at the environmental aspects of this kind of development.
I put forward the constructive suggestion to the Department that it is about time we considered seriously the American legislation, which requires in such circumstances an environmental impact assessment before any planning permissions are given and before any Government money is given. It may be difficult to write it into the Bill, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether the Government are prepared at least to consider the justification for an environtal impact assessment of all the authorisations which they are prepared to give? It is an important matter and it is seen as important by the oil industry, with which my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) have had fairly detailed discussions.
Secondly, I am interested in precisely how the equity will be obtained and how the approach will be made to the capital market. In particular, I should like to know a little more about the plans for a joint company. There has been a good deal of discussion but I am far from clear about the capital structure of the joint company. Precisely what is the capital structure of the joint company to look like?
Thirdly, the Under-Secretary talked about retaining control over the design, and I imagine that he meant the design of harbour facilities. I want to be clear about how such control is to be retained

and who is to do the retaining. I am prepared to believe that it is necessary to do it, but is the Scottish Office certain that it has the facilities to retain control over what is a difficult technical operation? I went to some trouble earlier in the week to find out from those who know about these problems, who work for the New Scientist, exactly what is involved. My informants told me that it is a specialised operation. What facilities has the Department to retain such control? It is easy to make sweeping statements in the House about the retention of control, but when it comes down to doing it physically in a difficult situation I am entitled to ask precisely how it will be done and what, in the Minister's view, it entails.
Finally, I read, as we all do, the homilies which the Secretary of State tends to make to Scottish industry in particular and British industry in general. Before the Government start giving such homilies to British industry, they had better start putting their own house in order. Before the Secretary of State made his speech last weekend, he should have remembered that British industry was looking for a series of governmental decisions. Subcontractors, both in the oil industry and in the alternative forms of power, particularly nuclear power, want some decisions. If the Government are wondering how they can help British industry, the answer is that they must make up their mind on the Vinter Committee. Are we to have a statement? Will the decision be for oil-firing or nuclear power at Boggan? The subcontractors have been kept waiting for months longer than necessary.
I know that these matters are complex; I am not suggesting that they are easy. However, it is for Government Departments to make up their minds and to talk to the subcontractors who really want to know. Decisions must be made and, before we have any more sermons to British industry, let us have some decisions from the Government so that British industry knows where it is going.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I can resolve the last part of the sermon of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) at once in that obviously a decision on Stakeness will obviously affect a decision on the power station at Boddam. Therefore,


the interests of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board and the possibility of tankers delivering oil to the power station are a consideration which the Government have very much in mind with a view to the projected development of Peterhead Harbour under the Bill.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was largely taken up with the part-authorisation to undertake special work. It could be that the users would do the development. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to authorise other persons
…to develop, maintain and manage…
My hon. Friend said that he had given a pledge in Committee on retaining control of the general conduct of a harbour. I am not clear as to where in Committee that pledge was given. My hon. Friend told the Committee:
There will be no question of the Secretary of State abrogating his responsibility for the developments within this harbour if he authorises others to carry them out on his behalf. He will be able to exercise control."—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 12th July, 1972; c. 74.]
Does that mean that the Secretary of State has decided to retain management in his own hands for the foreseeable future? Is that the pledge to which my hon. Friend referred today, a definite pledge about retaining management for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Peter Doig: I did not serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but, as one who believes that the Report stage is mainly for the benefit of those hon. Members who did not serve in Committee on a Bill, I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State some questions. It appears at first glance that this Measure will only cover new harbours which the Secretary of State decides to create or finance.
Let us suppose that, as has been reported as happening, a major oil strike takes place just east of Dundee. Dundee already has a harbour with ample storage accommodation and all the major facilities likely to be required. But there may be one or two small things not there which may need money for construction. Does the Bill cover a situation of that kind? If not, are the Government not being very shortsighted in not making provision for such development? I am not speaking from imagination. Oil

strikes have already been reported by the oil companies and there may be more. If the Government have not made the necessary provision in the Bill to cover such a situation, why have they not done so, since developments of this kind may take place in the very near future?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I apologise or not being here to move my Amendment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for doing it so capably for me. I was prevented because the House ordered me to withdraw in connection with the earlier Bill. I am sure that there are many times when the Minister would like to see me ordered to withdraw. He had better be careful; I am on my feet, and the night is young.
Once again the Minister resisted any Amendment concerned with the question of development, maintenance and management by authorised persons. One of the things from which we have suffered in this connection—and it has been brought further home to me through letters that I have received—is the fact that the Government have not given as much information as they could about the activities that they see flowing from the Bill.
No one wishes to hold up necessary legislation. I have never known legislation go through as quickly as this has. It is barely a month since we first heard about it. We debated it very quickly, late one night. Today's proceedings have been about the earliest that we have had on the Bill in the House. We dealt with it very speedily in Committee, in about one-and-a-bit sessions.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) were not both on the Committee; I could have done with them. At any rate, they are wise to take the opportunity that the Report stage affords for those who were not on the Committee to ask questions and for those who were to pursue points about which they were not satisfied, provided that they are in order.
It must be appreciated that when I suggest the deletion of the words
 "or authorise other persons so to develop, maintain and manage
I am not talking about Peterhead; I am talking about harbours. Peterhead is the


only one that has been mentioned. That is why we must be careful. We are giving the Secretary of State wide and sweeping powers. We have been told that Peterhead is one of the harbours that is vested in him, and that there is another pier at Uig, in Skye, but during our discussions in Committee the Secretary of State said that this provision might apply to Invergordon. If it might apply to Invergordon it might also apply to Rosyth or Faslane.
We were originally dealing with the harbour of refuge, vested in the Lord High Admiral, then in the Admiralty, and then, from fairly recent times, the Secretary of State. I do not want to wake up one day to discover that there is an additional harbour that Parliament has given the Secretary of State sweeping powers to develop, maintain and manage.
The Minister has said that we do not want to restrict the Secretary of State. By heavens, we are not restricting the Secretary of State with this Bill. It provides that
the Secretary of State shall, for any purpose, have power to develop, maintain and manage in such manner as he thinks fit…harbours made or maintained by him
and so on, and then, to make it doubly clear that there is no restriction on him,
and to do all such things as may be necessary or expedient for that purpose".
After the Bill leaves here, that is the last we hear about it and the Secretary of State is left to carry on—with this addition, that he can not only do this himself but can:
authorise other persons so to develop, maintain and manage, harbours".
We must talk about Peterhead, because it has been mentioned. Those who have been there remember it as a lovely burgh, a seaside resort with the unique feature of a harbour of refuge. It was not the Secretary of State that built it. If the law was carried out, it was built by Scotch male prisoners, under the same Act as authorised the building of the prison. We can understand the concern of many people that what will happen there will change the character of the place. There must be assurances on that.
The fishing industry also wants assurances. The original Act establishing the harbour of refuge took away some rights from the industry. Some people think

that the industry will be there long after the oil industry has exploited the resources and gone. But there must be a balance. That is why we require far more information than we have had on the oil industry.
One thing that is very clear about what is happening in the North-East is that there is getting to be virtually a land hunger up there. A considerable escalation of land prices is taking place. We have sought to find out how the development would be done. We have had an indication from the speeches today. The Government are prepared to lease out certain parts of land. That may include water, because the definition of land in Scottish law includes water.
Many people feel that if something must be done the Secretary of State should undertake it himself, so that environmental questions can be covered, as he is answerable to Parliament. As to the new Clause, there is already an annual report, by the Department of Agriculture, part of which appertains to the harbour of refuge, and I presume that it would continue to appertain to Peterhead or anywhere else.
We are concerned about how the development, maintenance and management will take place. It is a pity that we have no one learned in the law to help us. Does the Clause mean that one lot of people could develop, another lot of people could maintain, and another lot could manage, or that the Secretary of State could authorise someone to develop and that he himself could maintain and manage?
I hope that the harbour will be a valuable and continuing asset, but I want it to be to the benefit of the people of Peterhead and Scotland. They should get the best out of it and, in doing so, they too should have some control over the nature of the development so that it does not spoil the character of the place and the pace of its prosperity.
I have not been satisfied yet by the Under-Secretary's answers. He took far too flippant and impertinent a view.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No.

Mr. Ross: I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman to wash his ears.

Mr. Iain Sproat: That got home, did it not?

Mr. Ross: It did not get home, but this is the kind of thing we got instead of serious argument. The Secretary of State was concerned that we even talked about the Bill. These things are worth talking about. It is worth talking of the kind of power the right hon. Gentleman is taking, as it may later be discovered to go far beyond Peterhead. Parliament does not give this kind of power to a Secretary of State just on the nod, as the right hon. Gentleman expected. He asked whether I could possibly ensure that that would be so.
Can the Under-Secretary give any more information about the nature of the developments and the developers to whom the Government are thinking of granting authorisation, and the terms on which they are prepared to grant authorisation? We have been told that if the Secretary of State does this himself, it will cost between £3 million and £4 million but that if he did not do it the increased cost in respect of management and so on would be about £50,000. I am speaking from memory. I should like to have any up-to-date information that the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend has in respect of the financial obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire was right to draw attention once again to the fact that if there are to be developments in the Scottish valleys and on the coast, we should try as far as possible to ensure that they are undertaken by local or at least Scottish developers. My hon. Friend emphasised this. He did not ask for everything but that preference be given to United Kingdom suppliers in the supply of equipment required. We are not unreasonable in our suggestions there. It is fair enough that if the Secretary of State is going ahead with this kind of operation, he should do so with his eyes open to the opportunities of participation in this very considerable development, if it is to cost between £3 million and £4 million—and that is probably just the start.
As I remember the maps, I fancy that we may have more than one developer before we are finished here, depending on how things build up. That is why it is important. Is it in the Scottish Office's mind that there shall be more than one developer on these particular separated sites? If the authorisation for development, maintenance and management is

given to someone else, will the Secretary of State still exercise the power of compulsory purchase? That is his power or the local authorities' power. It is not that of an individual. This developer will be singularly fortunate in that he has behind him someone who is prepared compulsorily to purchase land for him and for this development.
9.0 p.m.
I hope that the Under-Secretary appreciates the difficulties and dangers. This is why I said that this is a bad Bill. Right from the start it has been loosely drafted. Under Subsection (1) it is the Secretary of State who is taking the power to develop or to authorise other persons to develop. In the course of development those other persons may acquire more land, but it is the Secretary of State who is empowered to
acquire land by agreement or compulsorily for the purposes of developing…such harbours…
If the Secretary of State authorises somebody else to develop, what will be the position of the person he authorises in respect of any further land that is needed? Will the Secretary of State act as that person's agent in compulsorily acquiring land, because the chances are that the land that is held by the Secretary of State will not fit neatly into the packet of land that is required by the developer?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the debate and thoroughly understand the reason why he was not a member of the Standing Committee. In view of his knowledge of many of the technological developments which have occurred in Scotland, I welcome the experience and knowledge with which the hon. Gentleman speaks in an industrial debate. He need not feel in the least reticent about taking part in these debates because he did not serve on the Standing Committee.
We are considering harbours that are vested in the Secretary of State. That is what limits the application of the Bill. It is more than harbours simply vested in the Secretary of State. It is harbours that are
vested in him by any Act or order".
It is this precise definition which restricts the application of the Bill to Peterhead, Uig and Invergordon.
I wish to correct something that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said. There is no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State letting slip in Committee that the Bill applies to Invergordon. My right hon. Friend made clear in Committee what the point was.

Mr. Ross: I still remember what the Secretary of State said. He said "Invergordon possibly".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The whole point is that the Bill applies to Invergordon as it stands, but the development of Invergordon will be covered by the Cromarty Firth Order which is under consideration.
Rosyth Docks are operated under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865, and under the authority of the Queen's Harbourmaster. There can be no question legally of the Bill applying to Rosyth.

Mr. Dalyell: All that is probably true, but it may nevertheless be a model for other developments. Rosyth is likely to remain under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Port Edgar, on the south bank of the Forth, is not, and there is a real issue as to whether this kind of Bill will be a model for any Measure which may be brought in in two or three years for, say, Port Edgar and the big tanker developments to which I referred.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point on that. Obviously, one is careful in what one does at any time, having regard to future repercussions. In relation to Peterhead, we shall learn as we go along, and I hope that at the same time the kind of management which we can provide at Peterhead and the way we go about it will be a model for others. That is certainly my right hon. Friend's hope and mine, and I am sure that the House would regard it as one which it would hope to realise.
The question of ownership is important. Occasionally, because of the big issues behind it, one tends to lose sight of the limited nature of the Bill. But of course the limited nature of the Bill does not mean that one can afford to be careless in its drafting and in the powers which we take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-

Gordon) asked for a further assurance on the question of the management of the harbour, and he wanted to know whether the Secretary of State would retain the management in his own hand in the foreseeable future. This is certainly our intention. However, as we made clear at earlier stages, it is possible at some time in the future, if it be thought desirable, for the Secretary of State to set up a new public authority as the harbour authority for Peterhead.
It will be possible to do that. It could have been possible at this stage but, as the House knows—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock knows it very well—if we had taken such a course at this stage it would have involved a hybrid Bill, creating certain legislative difficulties and problems of time at a point when there was urgent need to get this development under way. That is why we proceeded as we have for this particular purpose. However, as I say, if it be thought appropriate or desirable in the future, it will not prevent the Secretary of State from deciding to vest the harbour in a new public authority. That could be on the cards.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked what developments had taken place over the last week or so since the Committee stage. I have nothing to add to the fairly full account which I gave at the final sitting of the Committee, when I referred to what was being done in the Aberdeen planning committee and the consideration which it was giving to the matter.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked, in effect, what competence we had in the Scottish Office to deal with these exciting big developments. We are having to take advice. We have already appointed a consultant, Mr. Sutton—I think he will be known to the hon. Gentleman—from the Firth of Forth Harbour Board who is advising us on many of the management aspects. Also, we have appointed a firm of consulting engineers to advise us on the overall planning of possible developments at Peterhead. When we have their report, we shall study it carefully and take their advice. We are in close touch with the National Ports Council and with the Department of the Environment. We are taking their advice at every stage of the


development. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we do not regard ourselves as perfect within ourselves. It is our intention to take the best advice available, particularly on highly technical matters.
I have little more to add to what I have said in reply to the request of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for more up-to-date information. The same firms are still interested. A number of other commercial inquiries are under way which have not yet reached the stage of public application to the planning authority. Therefore, the situation is still fairly fluid, similar to the situation which we were in a number of weeks ago.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock also asked who would develop, maintain and manage the harbour and whether different people would do so. There is no mystery about this; we are not trying to hide anything. I repeat that we want flexibility. We have the power and, if it is appropriate, we intend to use it. The Secretary of State will be in a position to authorise people to develop, maintain and manage parts of the harbour whilst retaining overall control. He is the statutory harbour authority and therefore he will retain control. However, I am not in a position to give details about the developments or the developers because their plans are still being drawn up and negotiations are going on with the various interests involved. There could be more than one developer and more than one user of these facilities.
I should perhaps have clarified earlier a point raised by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). He asked whether peopleauthorised to undertake developments would do so on their own behalf or on behalf of the Secretary of State. Only if a developer wanted to undertake on his own behalf and at his own expense would authorisation be necessary. Any work done by a developer as agent of the Secretary of State and on behalf of the Secretary of State would, in legal terms, be development by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked about the capital structure. I should like to know how the company equity holding is to be formed. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I proposed to deal with that in a moment but I will deal with it now. The idea of joint ownership is introduced by the Amendment. We have no plans for such a structure. We would, in co-operation and conjunction with our consultants, take advice on the structure of companies wishing to develop the harbour. We have no plans to enter into that type of structure with companies wishing to operate or develop the harbour.
9.15 p.m.
Now I move on to two other points which the hon. Gentleman raised, one of substance and one of them on general policy. He talked about the kind of lead which the Government should give in these matters. What the Government are doing here is showing an example and takingthe lead. There is no question of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman said, preaching sermons to industry, because we are proving by our action what we think should be done and we are doing it.
The one point left in what the hon. Gentleman said was in relation to the environment. I accept entirely what he says about the importance of environmental factors and that we should take these into account. This was a matter raised on several occasions in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East not so much in relation to general policy as in relation in particular to Peterhead. I would certainly give him the assurance that the Secretary of State intends in the development at Peterhead to take into account very fully the environmental aspects.
It may be helpful to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for West Lothian to say, in relation to the discussions at the weekend on the edge of the latter's constituency, that the project which the hon. Gentleman spoke about is, as he knows, in front of West Lothian County Council in connection with the application from BP. In that case the county council has asked for an environmental assessment of the oil terminal in the Forth as a condition of planning permission. I hope that this will reassure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that environmental considerations are taken into account in developments of this kind. Certainly, in what is happening at


Peterhead and West Lothian the planning authorities have shown their awareness of these considerations, and my right hon. Friend as well, in connection with his planning functions, certainly intends to keep a close eye on this environmental matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Having total confidence in West Lothian County Council in other respects, of course I accept that, but the fix which any local authority is in is in connection with what future developments could be, and this is where we need help from the Scottish Office. It may be BP this year, and it could be Esso or Murco or a host of others another year. These applications would, of course, be considered in connection with the job opportunities which they could bring, and they would need to be discussed, but we do not want needlessly to have the sort of situation which has arisen on the banks of some European rivers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In all these matters the Secretary of State has certain planning functions. I am glad to say that asssistance which has been given by the Scottish Office in relation to these developments and their environmental aspects has been welcomed already by several local authorities in Scotland, and they have already expressed appreciation of what we are doing. We are available to any others to approach us. We are in close touch with Aberdeenshire County Council and also with Orkney and Shetland, and we are available to any local authority or planning authority which wishes to come to us to discuss these matters.
Of course, it is of tremendous importance for everyone in Scotland and for the future quality of life in Scotland that these matters are taken into account in the developments which take place, to see that they are planned sensibly with an eye on the future and not just the immediate value of the exploitation of oil. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well in his own constituency and from the oil industry previously in Scotland, the scars which can be made can take a very long time to erase. Obviously we must take these factors very fully into account in our planning.

Mr. Ross: The difficulty about this as I see it is that a decision will be taken even after an inquiry. I had a letter today from someone in the Glen of Drumtochty in Kincardineshire, where the reporter made a certain finding which was supported in principle, I believe, by the Secretary of State, and yet the Secretary of State has given power to the hydro board to set it aside and to do something—according to the letter—which, I have no doubt, the hydro board pleaded it was impossible to do in any other way. Thatis where there are pressures of urgency and where jobs are at stake. If we do not act quickly they will disappear to the south of France or Norway. We have to strike a balance. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the point about Drumtochty, on which I shall probably be writing to him.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as Drumtochty Glen is within one mile of where I live, I know exactly the instance he has raised. In mentioning this point the right hon. Gentleman has simply underlined the Secretary of State's function as the final appeal—

Mr. Ross: And his weakness.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously speaking from personal experience there. At the end of the day the Secretary of State has to take the decision on these vital planning matters. We have to balance the economic urgency of a proposal with the longer-term environmental factors, with which the hon. Member for West Lothian is so rightly concerned. At the end of the day it is a matter of balanced judgment and the Secretary of State has to come to his decision. All I am saying in response to the proper questioning of the hon. Member for West Lothian is that we shall bear environment factors strongly in mind. Local authorities in Scotland are becoming conscious of the importance of these factors and are taking them into account in their planning decisions.
We have covered again ground we covered earlier but I think it is useful to do so on the Floor of the House. Some of the Amendments I reject outright. I accept the spirit of others, but


I hope that with the assurances I have given about how we intend to proceed with Peterhead the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Douglas: I have listened with interest to all the speeches, particularly to the reply by the Under-Secretary of State. I wish I could say that I was heartened by the assurances he has given but I get the impression, without going into the genesis of the Bill, that the Scottish Office is being largely overtaken by events. As an example of this, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about capital structure, in a moment of frankness the Undersecretary of State indicated that he had no ideas at all.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not say that I had no ideas at all. I said that this situation did not arise at the moment.

Mr. Douglas: I do not want to bandy words across the Floor of the House. We can check the records to see what the hon. Gentleman said. My impression is that on the question of the capital structure, in terms of public ownership and public control, the Scottish Office is extremely vague. I grasp a little bit of light. We are pushing the Scottish Office in the right direction and I shall watch the operation of the Bill with great interest. We have had to push the Scottish Office on the whole potential of the area in relation to North Sea oil. I shall have other opportunities to pursue the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 3, after 'order', insert 'made by statutory instrument'. I understand that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment, Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert:
'(5) Any order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
Reference was made in Committee to several precedents in legislation in which no provision is made for parliamentary procedure on orders such as an enactment of the Bill may be made under subsection (4) of the Clause. The reasons for following those precedents were fully explained and dealt with in Committee

by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and they were fully discussed in Committee. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will wish to refer to them when he speaks on his Amendment No. 5.
Since the Committee stage my right hon. Friends and I have been looking at the question of whether provision should not be made in the Bill, as was done in the Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, for publication of an order made under this subsection. We feel that it would be proper to make such provision, and accordingly I ask the House to accept the Amendment.
The effect of providing that an order should be made by Statutory Instrument is to attract the arrangements for the printing and selling of Statutory Instruments by the Queen's Printers and for the numbering and publication in the edition of Statutory Instruments for the year provided for in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. Consultations with all interests concerned will have taken place as appropriate in making an order, and copies will be available in accordance with normal procedures for the publication and sale of Statutory Instruments. We feel that the Amendment helps to clarify the situation and moves matters a little further forward—though probably not as far forward as the right hon. Gentleman would like.

Mr. Ross: I suppose we must settle for the best we can get, but it is sad that the Government have not gone just a little further on this matter. There are certain public processes which can be carried through by Statutory Instrument, but there must be very few Members of Parliament who have taken note of all the Statutory Instruments which have been laid this week, or even yesterday. On the other hand, if we had made this procedure subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament these matters would be brought to our notice.
A sheaf of these orders is placed on my desk every week and I am asked to advise as to whether we should pray against them. This is something of a nonsense in the present state of parliamentary business, because there is no hope of finding time even to raise the matter by a Prayer, though many of these


orders are very important. I hope that sooner or later the House of Commons will get down to solving this continuing problem.
9.30 p.m.
However, it would have given us at least an opportunity of discussing for a short time what could be a very important matter. As matters stand, the Government have the right to set aside any local statutory provision, to repeal it, to amend it or to adapt it. The Secretary of State is empowered to
…adapt that provision to such an extent, or in such manner, as he considers appropriate…
Once again, there is no limit.
…any order under this subsection may include such transitional, incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary…
It is a disgraceful wide power to ask Parliament to set aside private legislation about which we know nothing. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates it.
The Under-Secretary of State thought it unfair of me to say that the Secretary of State slipped it into his speech, but Invergordon was not mentioned in the first instance either in the letters that I received from the Secretary of State or on Second Reading. It was well into Report that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it. No one had thought of it.
This is one of the difficulties. We are legislating in the dark. We may discover later that it applies to many other harbours of which we know nothing at present.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I made it clear at the beginning when I was first in touch with the right hon. Gentleman that the harbours where the Secretary of State for Scotland was harbour authority were two. I made it clear in the House. When thequestion was raised about whether there were any other Secretaries of State who might be covered by the terms of the Bill, the answer was yes, Invergordon. But in fact Invergordon is to be dealt with separately in another way, as the right hon. Gentlemanknows.

Mr. Ross: Yes, but it could come under this and be subject to it until it was dealt with in another way. We

seldom see the words "Secretary of State for Scotland" in any legislation. We see "Secretary of State," and that covers all Secretaries of State. Notionally there is only one. I raised this point on Second Reading. It may have been later that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Invergordon example.
However, I do not want to deal with it at any length now. But I think that we should retain a certain measure of parliamentary control, if only from the point of view of future Members who may be concerned about some activity.
The Secretary of State seeks power to set aside private legislation which was considered to be so important that it was brought here at great expense and after a tremendous amount of work. I do not believe that it should be so readily set aside, repealed, amended or adapted without Parliament knowing about it. That would have been the position, and I am glad that the Lord Advocate decided to put in "by Statutory Instrument". However, anyone who has any experience of Statutory Instruments will know that this is only a slight advance and gives Parliament little or no control over it. If it had been subject to annulment we should have had a certain measure of control.
There is another unknown factor. I refer to the rather stupid definition of "harbour" which is still there:
 'harbour' means any harbour, whether natural or artificial".
How can the Secretary of State make a natural harbour? There may come a time when he could vest in himself, by order or by Act of Parliament, a useful natural harbour. Then all this will flow from it. I am sure that the island of Rockall will one day become very important. We shall discover it is a natural harbour, realising what some people suggest about creating artificial harbours in the middle of the North Sea for the exploitation of oil.
We are legislating not for what will happen tomorrow but for a long time. That is why this is such a slipshod Bill. It is therefore important that we should talk about the powers in the Bill as we have done today. I am prepared to settle for what the hon. Gentleman has offered us. I will not therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Dalyell: It would be extremely dangerous to attempt to patronise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I think he will accept from me that he made an excellent speech.
As on many other occasions, my right hon. Friend revealed what many of us do not see at first sight—[Interruption.] It was an extremly important speech and I will tell the Under-Secretary why. One reason occurs to me and I will present my credentials for saying so. I was a member of the committee which studied the ports under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Michael Montagu. If the Under-Secretary doubts what my right hon. Friend said, there is this question to be answered: how is it that in the last 50 years the ports of this country have got into the terrible industrial mess they have? The more power that Parliament has to look into what happens in the ports, the better.
If the State is to be involved and if—I repeat "if"—we are to have equity shareholdings in the ports, I should like to see a close scrutiny not only of the way the facilities develop but of the way that human and industrial relationships develop.
Scotland has been very lucky. Grange-mouth is almost a model port. In 1966 and 1967 I visited 20 ports in this country with the Mikardo Committee. Anybody who did that, looking at the matter objectively, must be shocked by what has grown up. There is no other way of putting it. That is not an understatement. Our harbours and ports setup is a disgrace to a modern nation. Therefore it behoves us, when creating what will no doubt be another major port, if I may use a colloquialism, to keep on eye on it. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in what he said about parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the way he responded to the Amendment and I appreciate the matters he raised. I can do no more than reiterate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said in Com-

mittee, that it is a fine balance of judgment whether on these matters one regards the parliamentary procedure as appropriate or inappropriate. We have deemed that in this case the balance comes down in favour of the procedure that we have suggested, and in this we have unashamedly modelled ourselves on the Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, which deals with local enactments. That Measure was introduced by the Government of which the right hon. member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a member. I do not deny that there are precedents the other way but, following respectable precedents, we believe that because of the limited nature of the application of the Bill the procedure which we have chosen is appropriate.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for the way he has accepted at least the half loaf that we have provided. We are anxious to be sensible and practical, and I hope I can demonstrate that this is a practical solution to the problms
The hon. Member for West Lothian put the matter in rather idealist terms. One of the things we want to see is the modernisation of the docks, but is not this one of the painful processes through which we are going? It is encouraging that in Scotland, not only in the bigger ports such as Grangemouth but in some of the smaller East Coast ports, if I may express a local interest, the docks are well in every respect.
Coming to the other side of the hon. Gentleman's rather idealistic coin of how important it is to keep Parliament's finger on the pulse of docks development, let us remember that in addition to dealing with one or two bigger issues such as the sweeping aside of previous enactments, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be orders of a very much more mundane nature, and I honestly believe, with the best will in the world and trying to be practical, that it would not be proper for Parliament to be bothered about such matters.
We are dealing with the power to make harbour byelaws and with such things as the duty of the harbour master. I do not think that such matters are appropriate for the suggested parliamentary procedure. Let me quote from the most recent Statutory Instrument issued


under the previous legislation. It is entitled:
The Peterhead Harbour of Refuge (Port—Hand Rule) Byelaws 1960—Statutory Instrument 1960/831.
I am not a yachtsman, but the Lord Advocate is and I am sure he could explain this much better than I can. The Explanatory Note says that
within the limits of the Peterhead Harbour of Refuge power-driven vessels are to pass each other starboard to starboard and are to keep to the port side of the narrow channels within the harbour".
That is the kind of order that is made under the existing legislation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian that there are matters of principle and policy which it is important for the House to consider but, on the other side of the coin, there are local, practical matters which I do not think are appropriate for submission to the House.
I have tried to put the matter in perspective, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for agreeing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I cannot withdraw what I have not moved.

Mr. Dalyell: We do not necessarily want to consider orders about how ships should pass each other, but is there any harm in presenting such orders to the House? Would it cost more, or would it take up more Civil Service time? Is there any disadvantage in so doing?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend in Committee on 12th July. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will agree, on that occasion the Lord Advocate went into the matter in great detail and with a great understanding of the issues involved. If the hon. Gentleman reads that speech, he will find the arguments clearly set out.

Mr. Ross: I do not want it accepted that I agree with everything the Lord Advocate said on that occasion. It was a matter of balance and I do not suggest the balance has come down the right way. I wanted to intervene briefly to say that I can understand why the Scottish Office prefers Statutory Instruments. There

would be no difficulty through getting mixed up and forgetting to put something before the House which should go before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

POWER OF ARBITER TO STATE CASE TO COURT OF SESSION

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 18, at end insert:
'(3) This section shall not apply to any form of arbitration relating to a trade dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Courts Act 1919 or relating to an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971; to any other arbitration arising from a collective agreement within the meaning of the said Act of 1971; or to proceedings before the Industrial Arbitration Board described in section 124 of that Act'.
This Amendment, which I hope will be acceptable to the House, has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in response to an Amendment which was tabled by the Opposition in Committee and which sought to provide that the provisions of Clause 3, which provides that an arbiter may state a case on a question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session, shall not apply to arbitration relating to an industrial dispute.
The Government fully support the intention of the original Amendment because adequate machinery already exists under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, and the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, for settlement of such disputes. The clear intention of the 1971 Act, with this aspect of which at least the Opposition


will not disagree, is that industrial disputes should not be the subject of litigation before the ordinary civil courts such as the Court of Session in Scotland. As the House knows, arbitration may arise in industrial relations in many different ways. It can consist simply of a voluntary arrangement to submit disputes to arbitration, which are usually within the context of a collective agreement, or, alternatively, it may consist of a more firm type of arbitration under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, as amended by the Industrial Relations Act, 1971.
Under Section 2 of the 1919 Act, the Secretary of State may refer a trade dispute for settlement by the Industrial Arbitration Board, which was formerly called the Industrial Court, by the arbitration of persons appointed by him or by a board of arbitration selected by the parties and by the Secretary of State. Arbitration may also arise in the context of a collective agreement where it is desired to obtain a decision on the construction or effect of an agreement, whether or not an industrial or trade dispute is in being.
The new subsection is intended to ensure that in all these situations the existing machinery is preserved and no additional right of recourse to the court of session is conferred. I could go through some of the details of the effect of the Amendment, but I am sure they are even better understood and better known by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) than they are to myself. I confess that over the past few hours I have understood the subject in a way I have not understood it before. If the hon. and learned Member for Leith has any point he wishes to raise, I should be glad to seek to answer it.
We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to this matter. He is certainly right to have raised it in Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend is sorry that he cannot be here tonight. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend would have liked to express his thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having raised the matter.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I must express regret at the absence of the Lord Advocate. We sym-

pathise with him and understand the reason. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the kind words he said on behalf of his right hon. and learned Friend.
The Opposition welcome the Amendment. It is an excellent Amendment which exactly in drafting terms reflects the point I sought to raise in Committee. For my part, I am grateful to the Government for coming forward with such an excellent Amendment. It is perhaps a measure of what the future may hold. I think we have demonstrated perfectly satisfactorily to the Government that the Labour Party is in at least one respect right on industrial relations. Perhaps they could follow that logic a little further. I certainly commend the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL [LORDS]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.52 p.m.

The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, unless there is demur, I will group the 14 Clauses of the Bill and put them together to the Committee.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich) rose—

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) wishes to rise, I must put the Question on Clause 1.

Clause 1

THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE TO A MINIMUM PERIOD OF NOTICE

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I rose merely to give time to the Solicitor-General to be here, because I am sure he would wish to take


the opportunity at least of explaining what the Clauses are, but if he does not intend to take that opportunity I have no objection to the procedure you suggested, Sir Robert.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I am always delighted to have the opporuntity to explain what Clauses are when I feel that an explanation is necessary, all the more so when the opportunity arises so freely as a result of the unexpected expedition of the Scots in dealing with previous business. I congratulate them on their skill. I trust that the Committee will have the qualities which will enable it to understand the

Clauses of the Bill without further explanation from me.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

SALARIED SERVICE

"The Secretary of State shall, one month after the passing of this Act, appoint a Committee to examine and report on the possibility that the general medical and dental services of the National Health Service in Scotland be provided on the basis of a salaried service"—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I beg to move—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt on a matter of procedure, but the new Clause can be moved only by someone who has given notice. I must ask the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) to resume his seat.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In Committee we discussed the question how far, within the reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland, we could allow for the possibility that general medical practitioners, amongst others, could be employed on a full-time salaried service. The House will be aware that in the original Measure—the 1947 Act—the position of general practitioners and others was protected, in the sense that they were laid down as being independent contractors to the National Health Service. In the past 25 years we have often discussed the question of the exact relationship between medical practitioners and the National Health Service.
The idea that general practitioners can supply the necessary services independently of the National Health Service as it now exists is remote from reality. I have been taken to task by some general practitioners for saying in a Press interview that no general practitioner in Eng-

land or Scotland was afraid of full-time salaried service. I had a letter from one general practitioner, at least, who said that he was afraid of full-time service.
What I should have said—and what I think I did say—was that no generad practitioner need be afraid of full-time service. The argument has always been that general practitioners had a personal, day-to-day relationship with their patients; that they exercised individual clinical judgments, and were always afraid that the National Health Service would lead to some kind of civil service discussing every clinical judgment that they made, with some kind of overlord dealing with their patients in a way that they would regard as interfering with their professional status and with the terms of the Hippocratic oath that they took at the beginning of their service.

Mr. James Dempsey: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the new Clause would provide that the usual medical kit that a doctor carries with him would be supplied, and whether that would also apply to clinical accommodation?

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend raises a question about certain services that are supplied; on the one hand, the personal kit that the general practitioner carries around with him—which would in no way be involved in the terms of the Clause—and, on the other, the question of premises. The question of premises is covered in the Bill as it stands, in that premises can be supplied by the Secretary of State, with the proviso that he may recover either the whole cost or part of it. This illustrates the difficulty. We have the rather odd position that the general practitioner is to be employed as an independent contractor of an area health board, which will supply a comprehensive service—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Mr. Hughes: We are setting up comprehensive area health boards to run the health services, boards which will have the possibility of supplying health centres, of being the sole agent to build health centres and premises in which many general practitioners will practise. Still we have the fiction that the general practitioner is an independent contractor. I do not believe that any but a small minority of general practitioners believe that the National Health Service is a menace to them or their status as professional medical practitioners.
The whole future of medicine lies in a full-time salaried service, the kind of health service we are trying to achieve, an integrated health service. Therefore, 25 years after the passage of the initial Act, the possibility should have been examined of at least discussing the matter thoroughly with the general practitioners, not of asking their views and leaving it at that. If the Government of the day were prepared to discuss the matter urgently with the representatives of the medical profession, who could in turn consult their members, the younger members in particular, those who know no other health service, those who are coming into the service and whose future lies within the new integrated service, would surprise them by the amount of feeling within the profession in favour of a proper service in which everyone is fully employed on a salaried basis.
I hope that the Government will accept the Clause, so that the investigation for which we asked is carried out to see how and when the ideas about which we have talked tonight and in Committee can be carried into law.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Clause. In the Health Services in Scotland Report for 1971 we see that in Scotland there are 2,665 principals in general practice. On page 41 there is a table clearly indicating the ratesand kinds of payments made to general practitioners, family doctors, in Scotland. I do not want to go into

them in detail. I can illustrate very well what I want to say when I tell the House that there is a long list of rates and kinds of payment which medical practitioners can receive under our National Health Service. There are six separate categories on page 41, some of them divided into sub-categories. On the same page are other schemes and areas of payment, and on the following page are many forms of payment available to general practitioners under the National Health Service Act.
I mention this because more than £18 million is disbursed to general practitioners in Scotland. That is about £7,000 per annum per principal. We are now talking about the reports for 1971, and there have been substantial increases since then. No doctor would argue with the rather mild contention that this compares very favourably with other professions. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that £7,000 per annum per principal in 1971, which has risen to about £8,000 to £8,500 in the current year, compares very favourably with other professions.

Mr. Dempsey: In developing this argument, would my hon. Friend refer to the other miscellaneous income which general practitioners receive, for example, the charges for various types of medical lines following examinations or without examinations? I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would give some information about that element of income.

Dr. Miller: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter. It is a matter between the individual practitioner and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know the extent to which payments are made in the areas my hon. Friend has mentioned, but in some instances they are considerable and in others they do not amount to very much. Private payments made to practitioners are not included in these figures. I hasten to add that the figures I mention are gross figures because they include payment in respect of surgery premises and ancillary assistance. But they do not include, as my hon. Friend pointed out so well, the private payments which are made.
I am not gainsaying the right of the medical profession to earn this kind of salary. The general practitioner performs a very valuable service to the community in Scotland. There is no


doubt about that. I am not in any way objecting to his being paid properly for what he does. None of my hon. Friends objects to the general practitioner being paid in this manner. But one has to take into account what the GP does for this payment and what we should expect him to do, and what could develop under a salaried service.
What do general practitioners do for the average of £8.000 to £8,500 per annum that they earn? First, as we know, they consult. Patients come to see them in their surgeries. In addition, family doctors are always prepared to make emergency visits even while they are consulting. They also make routine visits. They are prepared to accept responsibility for emergency visiting after their normal routine of surgery consultation and their normal visits. They are also expected to keep up-to-date in then-profession. They are not over-paid for a 24-hour a day job.
The medical profession should be considering ways by which it can take advantage of modern trends in trade union matters. The profession should be considering exactly what it does for its rewards. In my experience, to a large extent younger doctors—those who have graduated within the last 10 or 15 years—have come to realise that, if they contracted with the State and accepted a salaried health service, they would be making a firm basis for the valuable work they do in society and gaining the benefits of conditions of work and service enjoyed by other workers in the social services.
The old objections to a salaried service are rapidly fading in the minds of doctors now practising. The Government should be alerted to a situation in which more and more younger doctors recognise that the so-called contractor element forms a shackle preventing them from performing the work they should be doing to help the community. If a salaried service were gradually introduced for younger practitioners, it would be long before it was accepted by the majority of doctors.
I agree that for quite a time there will be many doctors who will not accept a salaried service and who will say that they will not for any consideration agree to changing their status as independent

contractors. I accept that these people are entitled to their view, but their view is not entirely representative of the profession, certainly not of the younger element in the profession.
10.15 p.m.
It calls for no great imagination to realise that there are distinct advantages in encouraging acceptance in the medical profession of a salaried service in which doctors would no longer each have to provide the separate parts of the service as contractors but in which they would, so to speak, be released from the shackles of the way in which the profession has been harnessed in the past to provide the kind of complete service which it has hitherto supplied.
The same goes for dentists. At present—I take this from a report issued in 1971—there are 1,095 dentists providing general dental services in Scotland. There are attractions in the private practice of dentistry, but, as many of my hon. Friends will know, some of those attractions have been greatly exaggerated in recent years by certain elements in the dental profession, and there is a considerable proportion of younger dentists who would be willing to accept, especially in respect of National Health Service treatment, that there should be a salaried service.
I draw attention next to the position of the hospital consultant. Hon. Members will know of the problem which prevails as between the part-time consultant and the full-time hospital consultant. Suffice it to say that we believe—I am sure that my hon. Friends agree—that the part-time consultant system should be a thing of the past. It is an anachronism. The consultant physician, consultant surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon, paediatrician and the rest should all form part of a comprehensive salaried service within the National Health Service—

Mr. Dempsey: Full time, yes.

Dr. Miller: —full time. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's agreement. There can be no place for a system under which a group of people devote a small proportion of their time to the National Health Service and a large proportion of their time to lucrative private practice.
I know that some of what I am saying will not be popular with the medical profession, but I am sure that it will not be unpopular on any ground other than the salary aspect of it. Here, perhaps, I may beat variance with some of my hon. Friends, for I believe that a doctor, be he physician, surgeon, paediatrician or obstetrician, should have remuneration commensurate with his value to society and the skill which he can show. I do not object to a high rate of pay. What I object to is the double standard involved—the short cut, the way in which an operation may be performed without much delay as a result of people getting to the head of the queue because they are willing to pay a fee to a consultant who is operating, to a great extent, out-with the National Health Service.
This is an aspect of the reorganisation of the service which is fundamental to the concept of what a health service should be.

Mr. Dempsey: I am very interested in the argument my hon. Friend is adducing. It is well known that if people go privately to a consultant they can have their medical examination, analysis and everything else in a matter of days, whereas if they go to the same person employed in the hospital service on a part-time basis they may wait weeks. The solution to the problem is to ensure that priority cases are given urgent attention.

Dr. Miller: My hon. Friend raises a point which is of extreme importance in the National Health Service. Although the possibility of people getting to the head of the queue does not apply in respect of urgent conditions, it applies in respect of non-urgent conditions, and most of the operations which are performed are non-urgent. It is wrong that there should be two separate branches of the National Health Service—one which permits a person to go to the head of the queue because he pays a fee to a consultant, and the other in which it is impossible for a person to do that because he cannot afford to pay the fee and therefore must go to the end of the queue and wait several weeks, sometimes months and occasionally years before an operation is performed.
We have to tackle this aspect of the service. If we believe that the National

Health Service was instituted for the benefit of people as a whole, we cannot believe other than that there should be no form of queue jumping or preferential treatment based on people's ability to pay. The only way in which we can obviate the problems which develop in the Health Service as presently constituted is to make it a completely salaried service in respect of the general practitioner, the general dental practitioner and the consultant, whether he be a paediatrician, obstetrician, physician or surgeon.
I commend to the Under-Secretary of State the new Clause which touches upon the basis of the health service in Scotland and, indeed, in the United Kingdom. I know he is a man of very considerable compassion. He followed the proceedings in Committee avidly and answered in a very competent way the points we on this side made to him. I am positive that he himself believes that this is the kind of service which has to be developed and which will be developed before we can truly say that the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and in Scotland is really a national service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I expect the House will have heard that we had a very constructive Committee on this Bill and that with the kind of harmony we had we were able to make a lot of progress. A number of the Amendments which we shall be discussing tonight have been put down by the Government to meet the wishes of the Opposition—and I shall accept one of theirs.
However, I am afraid that this Amendment is one I am not able to accept because it would make a cardinal change in the principles of the National Health Service. In any event, a change of this magnitude should not be made by this Bill, which is concerned with the reorganisation of the Health Service administration and does not seek to change the financial basis on which the service is founded and on which facilities are provided. The Bill is, basically, a Measure agreed between the professions and the Government, and in the light of the previous Government's Green Paper, in which there was no provision made for a wholly salaried service. Indeed, in the


paragraph dealing with the general practitioner service it said:
The existing procedures for the provision of professional services and the terms and conditions on which they are provided need not be affected by the change.
The change proposed in this Amendment would undoubtedly be resisted very strongly by the medical profession and by the other practitioners, such as the dental practitimners whom the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) mentioned and on whom the success of the reorganisation largely depends. I think that it would adversely affect the morale of the professions. If we were to accept the Amendment they would doubt the good faith of the Government's long-term intentions in this Bill.

Mr. Dempsey: Can the hon. Gentleman answer just one question, please? Can he say whether he has had any strong representations from the general practitioners objecting to the principle proposed in this new Clause?

Mr. Monro: Yes. Indeed I have.
In Amendment No. 3 as well as in this new Clause the Opposition claim, in particular, that the independent contractor status prevents the full integration of the health services. There is no evidence that the special form of remuneration adopted for general practitioners hinders integration in any serious way.
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove has said about pay, and particularly the long hours he works, and I am sure that all of us are very appreciative of the general practitioner service. We must also take into account a point which he did not allow for—the long period of training which doctors undertake. I do not think anybody in this country would grudge the medical profession the pay which it receives at present.
10.30 p.m.
The question whether private practice on the part of consultants acts to the detriment of patients or of the NHS was recently considered by the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short). The Committee concluded that there was no widespread abuse and that on the whole the NHS benefited. The absence of the flexibility provided by part-time consultants would almost cer-

tainly make recruitment to certain posts more difficult.
We have argued many of these points, and it is unnecessary for me to go over them again in depth. I have, of course, taken note of what hon. Gentlemen have said, and I know the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr.Robert Hughes) holds particularly strong views. But I think all hon. Members will realise that this is a fundamental change that I cannot possibly accept at the moment or in the foreseeable future. With reorganisation on the threshold, this is no time to bring in a change of such magnitude.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Carmichael: We had a good Committee stage which went very smoothly. The Under-Secretary of State in replying in Committee raised several points which if he had repeated them tonight might have extended the debate for longer than he wishes. For instance, he spoke of the form of remuneration adopted for the general practitioner and dental services being not so different from that which applies ina full-time salaried service. He was on extremely dangerous ground in talking of consultants in hospitals attached to the National Health Service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-West (Mrs. Renee Short). There was dispute within the Committee whether the part-time nine-elevenths consultancy type service was necessarily a good thing for the service as a whole. We on this side of the House are unanimous in our desire that ultimately the part-time consultancy service should go.
My view is that we must wait until more general practitioners realise the benefits of a full-time salaried service. They are virtually a full-time salaried service now. More than half their income comes direct from the Treasury in capitation fees. The cheque arrives each month, and they know exactly what they will get. I am sure they would be horrified, as we all would, if the cheque did not come at the end of the month. General practitioners have nothing to lose by ultimately coming into salaried service; on the contrary they have a great


deal to gain. Once they were in salaried service they would no longer be concerned about trying to keep their own little corner going, but would be able to join the rest of us in demanding that the Government devote a bigger share of national resources to health.
For instance, the health centre programme is a great concept, going back to the 1948 Act, which needs to be expanded. We are learning about health centres and the need for certain modifications. We are learning of the dangers of health centres which are too big. We feel that a salaried general practitioner service could help more than the present contractual service. I realise that this would mean putting forward legislation for reconstruction of the service, but it is at least important that we should take this opportunity to air our views on these matters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION AND MEDICAL, ETC., SERVICES

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, after 'patient', insert 'or his place of work'.
The object of this Amendment is quite clear, namely to empower the Secretary of State to proceed either with the establishment of an occupational health service or to proceed to think about the problem and begin to set one up. It is disappointing that all we have had so far from the Government is a technical reorganisation. The Minister in charge of the Bill keeps saying that this is all that is intended—that the Bill deals with a small, technical reorganisation matter and that we should not discuss matters of principle because they are not in the Government's mind at all.
After 25 years of the operation of the National Health Service, all that has been examined by the Government has been the operational efficiency of the tripartite system which has been in existence since the original 1947 Act. Surely the Government could have given some consideration to the lessons which have been

learned over those 25 years. But it would appear that no thought has been given either to the principles of reorganisation or to the investigations which have been carried out in the last quarter of a century.
It is significant that in all the speeches by the Secretary of State and by the Minister on Second Reading and in Committee there was no mention of the problems of occupational ill health. The Government have been obsessed by other matters. They have been concerned about strikes almost to the exclusion of everything else. But let us leave aside their current difficulties on that subject and the fact that once again they appear to have been miraculously rescued by the intervention of the Official Solicitor. Let us also leave to one side the fact that many days have been lost in industrial disputes as a result of the Government's short-sighted Industrial Relations Act; although it is important to recognise that for every day lost in strikes, 10 days are lost through industrial injury and disease. It is even more significant that for every day lost in strikes, 100 days are lost in ordinary illness.
We should try to tackle the problems of ill health in an imaginative new way. Our problem in the Health Service at present is that we tackle the difficulties at the wrong end. Our emphasis is on the curative rather than on the preventive aspect of medicine. My own view is that the absorption of the local authority health service into the single unit of the area health board, tilts the already over-weighted balance even more towards the curative hospital services and away from the admittedly weak, but nevertheless important, preventive aspect of our National Health Service.
A major step forward in this reorganisation would be to introduce a proper occupational health service. I accept that the Government have made some move towards looking at the problem. They have put through the House the Employment Medical Advisory Services Act, which is expected to become operational towards the end of the year. It was similar to Part I of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill proposed by the Labour Government, but lost due to the dissolution of Parliament and the result of the 1970 election. However, I do not


think that this can be regarded as a proper substitute for a fully comprehensive occupational health service.
To be fair to the present Government, they have never claimed that the Medical Advisory Service was intended to be a substitute for a fully comprehensive occupational health service. In the course of the Second Reading debate on the Employment Medical Advisory Service Bill on 13th December, 1971, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment made it clear that the Bill was not intended to provide a fully comprehensive occupational health service.
Similarly, the passing of that Bill laying down a limited occupational health service resting with the Department of Employment is not the end of the story. In fact, it is only the beginning of the discussion of what should be done about an occupational health service. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education will not use as an excuse for resisting this Amendment the fact that the Government have passed the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act and therefore that there is no need to do any more. That defence does not hold water.
On 13th December 1971, the Under-secretary of State for Employment said:
When the National Health Service is reorganised, the proper home for the Employment Medical Advisory Service will undoubtedly have to be looked at again by the Departments concerned, and I can assure the House that there is nothing in the EMAS proposals as at present drafted which prejudices the issue of what arrangements might be most appropriate in the long term for occupational medicine. I hope that some medical authorities who have raised doubts about this will read these words in Hansard and accept this assurance as it is a sincere one from my Department.
The Under-Secretary was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) to confirm that he was not excluding the possibility of the reorganisation of the Health Service incorporating changes to allow occupational health centres under the NHS, and the hon. Gentleman replied:
That is possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me because the reorganisation of the Health Service is not for my Department to carry though the House. There is no doubt that there will be continuing consultations between Government Departments who are affected."—[Official Report, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, cc. 126–7.]

So that at that stage there was the possibility of discussions being held in the future. But nothing has been said in this Bill about the position of an occupational health service. Apart from one or two minor references, as a result of our probing, there has been no reference to an occupational health service, and this is a very serious omission from both our discussions and the Bill.
There can be no doubt that such a service is needed urgently. The average number of working days lost a year due to certified sickness absence is about 300 million. Many people have tried to estimate the cost to the individual, and a number of different calculations have been done; for example, in the year 1967–68 it was estimated to have cost of the order of £1,750 million. That is a staggering sum, and it approaches the total cost of the Health Service, or 5 per cent. of the national income. Clearly there is a great cost to the individual in being off sick.
The cost to the nation can be calculated in different ways. It has been estimated that the cost to the Exchequer of sickness benefits in 1967–8 was £328 million, or roughly £1 for every working day lost due to certified sickness absence. There is a tremendous amount of money involved. By having a proper service which prevented illness and loss of work, we could save the nation a considerable amount of money.
10.45 p.m.
What cannot be calculated, in addition to all these calculations on which an accurate figure can be placed, is the actual loss of production due to the diminution of the operational efficiency of the person who is sick but who is still at work. Although we always try to see that sickness benefit is as high as possible so that people who are off ill do not suffer too much from the lack of finance and there is no real hardship to individuals, we must always recognise that this is only a palliative, because we must never forget that the individual has a right to good health in itself, and this is a basic right to be fought for at every opportunity.
If we can alleviate and/or prevent illness and human suffering, we shall have achieved something really precious and worth while. We are all agreed on this. I do not think there is any real difference


in this House or in the country about the object we should be setting out to achieve. The only point of difference appears to be how we set out to achieve it.
We have had many reports on and investigations into an occupational health service, and it is astonishing that these investigations, by many diverse bodies, have gone on for so long and yet neither this Government nor the previous one really tackled the question. There have been plenty of studies, but very little action. For example, as long ago as 1949 the then Labour Government set up the Dale Committee to look at the relationship of occupational health and the National Health Service. This committee reported in 1951 and recommended that there should be a comprehensive provision for occupational health which covered not only industrial establishments, large and small, but also non-industrial occupations. These included occupations such as agriculture and people employed in offices.
I do not go the whole way with the Dale Committee, because it recommended that most of the occupational health service should be done on some kind of private basis. This means that, apart from anything else, it would be confined to the large firms which had the resources available. One can postulate different ways in which companies could group together for a kind of group occupational health service, but that would not be a proper way to run things. It would not be a satisfactory way. The best way is to have the occupational health service properly integrated into the National Health Service.
Although there may be difficulties in defining what we want, or what the object should be, the most acceptable definition of an occupational health service may be that laid down by the International Labour Organisation/World Health Organisation Committee on Occupational Health in 1950, which said—and this definition is very wide and covers what we are after:
Occupational health should aim at the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well being of workers in all occupations; the prevention among workers of departures from health caused by their working conditions, the protection of workers in their employment from

risks resulting from factors adverse to health, the placing and maintenance of the worker in an occupational environment adapted to his physiological and psychological equipment and, to summarise, the adaptation of work to men and of each man to his job.
That is a wide definition, yet we see that although all kinds of medical practice and all kinds of diagnostics in medicine have changed in the last 20 years that broad definition, particularly the last sentence, is still relevant today.
In addition to those committees, there was the 1962 Porritt Committee on the British Medical Association, and again it reported that there should be some developments in the National Health Service. In 1968 there was the Royal Commission on Medical Education, and again it made comments, but nowhere is there a comment from the Secretary of State on what he sees in all this. This is disappointing, because the Secretary of State made available to us—and we are grateful to him for doing so—the discussion document put out by his Department in relation to all the topics to be discussed and there is nothing in this document which suggests that the question of an occupational health service was being looked at at all.
We in the Labour Party have looked at the matter often and long, and believe that a number of points should be taken into consideration. For example, doctors and nurses should work in factories or visit factories as required, to treat both accidents and illnessoccurring at work. There should be a medical examination of people undertaking jobs where physical fitness is essential, of those who are worried about the effect of work on their health, and of those engaged in dangerous processes. There should be a study of all health risks and working conditions and of how management can safeguard workers. There should be provision for accommodation for treatment at work wherever such provision is justified in improving health and saving work time. There should be rehabilitation facilities to enable the disabled to make their full contribution to industrial production. There should be the teaching of preventive medicine and positive health measures to the workers in factories. There lies a responsibility. There should beproper training and equipment for all first-aid workers.
Those are all important points, because there is now clear evidence that conditions of service at work have a bearing on the mental health as well as the physical health of people involved in work.
It is interesting to look at the changing pattern in absences from work due to illness, and the kind of reasons given by doctors in medical certificates. There has been a tremendous reduction in the absences, for example, due to tuberculosis. In 1967–68, the amount of absences due to tuberculosis was only 17 per cent. of the lost man days attributed to the same disease in 1954–55. That is a great reduction which reflects the great changes in the environment and the general health of the public which have taken place in the past 25 years. What is growing fast is incapacity due to psycho-neurosis and neuroses. Perhaps this is due not only to the great change in the stress of work and the conditions of work and the different patterns of work, but also to the different patterns of living.
We deplore not so much the lack of action, although that is bad enough, but the lack of thought and discussion. The Government have approached the Bill without a spark of imagination about the future. The Amendment offers the opportunity to put the situation right.

Dr. Miller: It would be churlish of me and my hon. Friends not to indicate that we are glad to have the opportunity to discuss this important Amendment, which indicates that the important aspect of the National Health Service is the patient. The important point is not the set-up of the service, the doctors, the nurses or the ancillary services, but the patient. It is the patient about whom and around whom the service has evolved.
I make no apology for taking a little time to point out that in the next six or nine months we will have similar points of view put forward when the United Kingdom Bill is brought before the House. We will then discuss similar aspects of the problem to those we are now discussing. It is perhaps indicative of the situation that there are few hon. Members listening at the moment, but I am not making any criticism of that.
I want to draw on my considerable experience of 20 years as a general prac-

titioner in this respect. I know that no insoluble problem is involved in the Government accepting that some aspect at any rate of occupational health service should be incorporated into the Bill, even if it were a simple matter of saying that a man or a woman should have two doctors, one at the place of work and the other near the home, if necessary dividing the capitation fee, which would balance out in the long run. There would be no problem there.
There are many places in Scotland where it is impossible for the medical profession to provide a service at the time when it is possible for quite a number of patients on the doctor's list to go to him. Some of my hon. Friends represent constituencies where complaints have been made that after five o'clock in the evening it is impossible for a patient to see his doctor.
I am not levelling any complaint against the individual doctor because it may well be that he has somewhere else to go at that time, for there are places in Scotland, particularly in the rural areas, where a doctor covers a large area and has to have a surgery in one place at one time and a surgery in another place at a different time, which means that patients in one area cannot consult him after work because he is in another area at the time, seeing other patients.
I do not see why there cannot be incorporated into the Bill a provision which would make it possible for a patient to consult his practitioner at work. With our modern methods of computing, there should be no problem in making records available quickly between one point of contact between patient and doctor and another point of contact.
I appreciate that the Amendment does not cover the whole range of an occupational health service but only a very small part of it, but it is at least a start. It would at least mean that a man employed in a small factory—many of the larger factories have their own industrial health services—could contact a doctor. Many industrial estates are conglomerations of small factories and it may well be that a doctor in the vicinity could undertake to provide a medical service for the estate which at the moment is not being provided by the patients' own doctors. All I am asking is that the Under-Secretary of


State should turn his mind to the possibility of making a dual capacity possible. Let the service be available at an industrial estate in the form of medical provisions, to anyone who needs it, without this infringing the relationship between doctor and patient in any way.
11.0 p.m.
In other words, let the doctor-patient relationship be entirely to the benefit of the patient in this respect. Let it be possible for a patient to have a doctor near his place of work in addition to having a doctor near his home, instead of the patient having to choose which is more convenient to him.
Even this matter of choosing is finely balanced. For a considerable part of the time it would be better for the patient to have a doctor near his place of work, and for a smaller part of the time it would be more advantageous and convenient to have one near his home. I ask that the Secretary of State should examine the possibility that a patient need not be faced with this difficult choice, often a finely balanced choice, as I know from my experience in general practice.
Fortunately I had hours which suited the majority of my patients but there were patients who had employment a considerable distance from where they lived. They tended to arrive at my surgery when I had to be in another place, and it is from that experience that I ask the Secretary of State to examine carefully the possibility of ensuring that patients are not neglected; are not denied necessary treatment and continuity of treatment; and to ensure that no loss of production is involved if it should be necessary for a man or woman to stay off work to consult a doctor near his home when it would be much easier and involve no loss of production to spend 15, 20 or 30 minutes consulting a doctor near his place of work.
This is not the whole substance of an occupational health service, but my hon. Friends would agree that with the necessary changes which would be made if there were a full occupational service, it would be a very encouraging start.
It is with a degree of plaintiveness that I ask the Minister not to discard the thought behind this Amendment because

it does not, perhaps, entirely comply with drafting requirements.
It would go a long way to creating an aspect absent from the health service since 1948 and towards filling a gap in the comprehensive service.
I ask the hon. Member—perhaps not on bended knee but certainly with a great deal of humility, and bringing to him my 20 years' experience in general practice in which I met this problem day in and day out—to look favourably on the Amendment, at least to the extent of seeing whether it is possible to achieve its end in some way.

Mr. Monro: I agree to a large extent with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members who have spoken to the Amendment. I would point out to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), who has been so constructive in the debates on the Bill, that it is a massive Measure, and that the amount of work that is to be done between now and April, 1974, is immense. It is wrong to think that quite major issues such as we have discussed on the first two Amendments can be popped in at the last moment. That would overload the working of the Bill in the next 18 months.
Strictly in terms of draftsmanship, the hon. Member should realise that the Amendment is unnecessary, because the Bill already refers to
medical, nursing and other services, whether in such accommodation or premises, in the home of the patient or elsewhere.
That can be carried out under the National Health Service. It is in Clause 2 (1) (c), and it covers the reference in the Amendment to "or his place of work" by the words "or elsewhere".
I know that hon. Members have used the Amendment as a vehicle for discussing the occupational health service, which is most important. Hon. Members have appreciated that the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act, which went through this Session, seeks to rationalise the existing arrangements both by concentrating medical expertise in fewer hands and by eliminating unnecessary routine examinations of fit young adults. Responsibility will still rest with the Secretary of State for Employment.
This reflects the background against which such services have developed, with the whole range of industrial health and safety—not merely its medical aspects—closely linked with the Factory Inspectorate.
Hon. Members do not seem to have taken on board the great importance of the Robens Report, which came out this month. I know that when they have studied it—especially paragraphs 375 to 380, dealing with occupational medicine in the future, and paragraph 371, dealing with the EMAS—they will realise that this would be the wrong moment to take any dramatic new initiative. The Government are studying this report urgently, and we have only just passed the Act to which I have referred. It would be wrong to take another important step tonight by putting anything further into the Bill to do with the occupational health service.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made a point concerning my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and subsequently the question asked by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). In the Official Report of Standing Committee A, on 20th January, 1972, my hon. Friend made it quite clear that at the moment the balance of thought was that the service should remain under the Secretary of State for Employment. There is no likelihood of any immediate change of responsibility, but our detailed study of the Robens Report, the Act I mentioned, and what I am saying tonight show that we are very well aware of the importance of occupational health, and that we believe that in the immediate future the way ahead is through co-operation between the EMAS and the National Health Service. They must work together as closely as possible. Lord Robens, in his excellent report, saw a solution in the formation of an authority for safety and health at work. The matter will be given close scrutiny by the Government. As a result of all these deliberations, including what has been said tonight, I am sure the importance of this measure of occupational health will be accepted by the Government, and that at the appropriate time further legislation or administrative action will be taken. There is no question but that the Government are seized of the importance of the subject.
In view of the assurances I have given I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not wish to swap quotations of what has been said by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. We find that at different points the hon. Gentleman was being all things to all men.
It is significant that the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act took three sittings to complete its consideration in Committee, whereas, with the greatest of co-operation, this Bill took nine sittings. The Opposition do not feel adequately rewarded for their co-operation, even with what the hon. Gentleman has so far given us. It is all very well for the Minister to express certain sentiments and agree with the Opposition's general views. He argues that our proposal would so overload the machinery that it would be impossible to carry it out by the prescribed date in the Bill. My view is that it would have been possible under our Amendment to proceed to have a reorganisation. It might not have been complete by the operative date in the Bill, but I do not think that everything in the Bill must be ready by then.
I hope that there will be some action. We shall debate the Robens Report in greater detail on another occasion. I find the report disappointing. That was one of the reasons which prompted us to put down the Amendment, in the hope that the Minister's first thoughts on the matter might be more helpful. I know that there are differences of opinion. For example, the TUC believes that the occupational health services should be left with the Department of Employment. The other side of industry takes the opposite view.
I hope that the Minister does not have a closed mind on the subject. I hope that the view of his hon. Friend the Under-secretary for Employment, that the service should develop in the Department of Employment, is not the settled view of the Government, and that they will not feel that what is done in England and Wales is necessarily appropriate for the whole country. Our society is in many ways different from the general society in England and Wales. Perhaps a case can be made for such a service being with the health service in Scotland.
But in view of what the Minister said, and the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, wihtdrawn.

Clause 8

FAMILY PLANNING

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move, Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 17, after 'subsection', insert
'(except advice on contraception)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be in order to discuss Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pressed very firmly in Committee for this clarification to be made to the Clause. Although the Government's full-scale review of family planning services has not yet been completed, it can be said without reservation that it has progressed to the stage where it is clear that a power to charge for advice will not be used and is not needed. Modification of the Clause as proposed does no more than confirm settled policy, but nevertheless will be welcomed as evidence that the Government accept family planning as an integral part of a comprehensive health service.

Dr. Miller: We must thank the Under-secretary for writing these few words into the Bill. They indicate clearly the way in which the Government are thirled to the concept of free advice on contraception.
Having said that, I must point out that that is not quite the full story of what we want. In Committee we had a fairly wide-ranging debate on the Clause. In that debate it was made quite clear that there has to be an even more positive attitude on the part of the Government in respect of the whole range of family planning facilities. When patients consult their doctor about family planning, it is not enough that the advice which they receive should be free. In any case, that applies generally in the health service. The patient will say, "It is all very

well that you should give me free advice. I am entitled to that. That is no skin off my nose or your nose. That is what you are paid for. I pay my taxes in order to receive free advice."
But what about the prescription? Here is the rub. The Government are being very narrow in this matter. They are seeking to save a very small amount of money. It is only money that prevents them from providing all the family planning services; not merely the advice aspect but all the services, the pill, the appliances, and so on, should they be necessary under medical supervision. The Government are being very shortsighted in this matter. It does not take a mathematical genius to calculate how much money will be saved at the end of a particular year or over a few years if the total necessary family planning provisions are made. I need not spell it out—the prevention of pregnancies, the avoidance of admissions to hospital and calls on the whole range of post-natal care, and so on.
It is short-sighted to imagine that one will save money in this way. Money will be lost, not saved. What is more important, it is precisely those who are not able or willing to spend the relatively small sums necessary for family planning necessities to whom we should be directing our attention. The service is lauded as being available to the public, but when they go to use it they find that they have to pay and it is not the free service which they expect.
I am sure that the Government are looking at the matter only from the financial standpoint. There are hon. Members who feel that family planning is a private affair for which people should be prepared to pay. But that is another argument, and the Government do not take that view. They believe that money can be saved by asking people to fork out of their own pockets the small sums necessary to effect a comprehensive family planning service.
In Committee, I declared not just an interest but, so to speak, a specialty interest, and I was chided by the Chairman for so doing. I am a family planning consultant, and in the clinic which I run in London I see many patients who would be prevented from using the full resources of the Family Planning


Association if they had to find the money to purchase the necessities for full contraception.
I ask the Government not to be so short-sighted in their approach. The Minister is not just sympathetic to the idea; he is completely in favour of a comprehensive family planning service, He must therefore realise that he is acting against the best interests of the development of the service by asking for payment.
This falls into a slightly different category from the attitude of the Under-secretary and the Government to charges and payments in the National Health Service. I shall not discuss the question whether the NHS should be free. We on this side of the House feel that there should be no payment in the service, but, assuming that we accept that there must be payment, it is stupid to ask for payment in this sector of it. If the Government ask for payment to be made, they are almost certainly ensuring that they will have to spend more money than they would spend if the service were free. I ask the Under-Secretary to think about that. I am sure that if he thinks of it in a completely detached and objective way he will realise that the best way of saving money in the service is to make not only family planning advice but family planning appliances completely free.

Mr. David Steel: I touched on this subject on Second Reading, and I read with great interest the report of the Committee proceedings on the Amendment similar to the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends which was moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller). I recognise that the Government have made a gesture in their Amendment, but it is only a gesture, without a great deal of substance. I do not ask the Government to accept off the cuff the Amendment in my name, but I do ask them to undertake to reconsider this matter before the Bill reaches another place.
Since the Bill was published, there have been four major reports on the subject of family planning which should influence, if they have not already influenced, the thinking of the Scottish Office and the Department of Health and

Social Security. We are entitled to ask for further information on this matter. There is no doubt that, as a result of the Government's Amendment, while family planning advice would be free of charge—and, as the hon. Member for Kelvingrove said, it is already in substance free of charge—if the advice were given on social grounds and it advocated contraceptive appliances, the patient would have to foot the bill.
I could cite many examples, but I had a letter a few weeks ago from a married woman in Jedburgh, in my constituency, who has to travel to Hawick for the nearest family planning clinic. She pointed out that the cost of one visit to the clinic in terms of the amount she has to pay for the provision of the next few months' supply of the "pill", plus the bus fare, and not to mention the time lost in carrying out her family responsibilities, was about £5, For a family living on a small weekly wage of about £15, as in this case, that it a very-large amount.
The Government are determined to press ahead with the family planning campaign, but that campaign would be very much effective later this year if it were backed by a forward-looking policy which recognised that family planning appliances and services, as well as the advice, should be free.
11.30 p.m.
I referred to four major new reports which have been forthcoming since the Bill was published in February. I should be very interested to know from the Under-Secretary how may of those have been studied by the Scottish Office, because I suspect not all of them have. The first I refer to is the report of a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists under Sir John Peel. It reported in February this year, the same month as the Bill was published. It was a very distinguished body. I do not think anyone would say it consisted of outrageous radicals. In page 91 of its very sober report on contraception and abortion the working party said:
We strongly recommend that a comprehensive contraceptive service should be established within the National Health Service. There should be no financial disincentive to the provision of advice and services by any doctor working within the National Health Service.


That is a very weighty report, and I trust it has been considered by the Government.
In Committee the Under-Secretary was challenged on how much it would cost to have a completely free family planning service, with appliances and services free. With a proper sense of reserve, he admitted that this was a question of judgment. What he said was:
The figure which has been suggested in discussions"—
a nice vague phrase I rather like—
' "is that it might cost £4 million more in Scotland alone."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd May 1972; c. 118.]
It is difficult to argue on the arithmetic, and I do not propose to do so tonight, but let us accept for the moment the figure of £4 million to be correct. There are two further points which must be considered. A report, also, as it happens, published in February this year, by the independent group, Political and Economic Planning, contained a very interesting study which concluded:
It seems particularly desirable that local authorities should consider the total benefits of investment in family planning. At present the costs of family planning are generally laid on the health committee's budget whilst other committees' budgets benefit from its provision.
That, I think, is the answer to the Under-secretary when he said that
if we had no charge for social reasons, it could only be at the expense of other requirements within the National Health service."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd May, 1972; c. 117.]
One has to look at the actual budgeting of the service itself when considering the cost benefit of the family planning provisions. On page 2 of the PEP report there is an interesting table. I do not by any means accept the figures as gospel, but they are an interesting study which attempts to tabulate the cost per unwanted child prevented during the current year, and the benefit-cost ratio. What is said is that the cost per unwanted child prevented in the current year would be about £34—this is for the fourth child which might be born to a family—whereas the benefits, by preventing that unwanted birth, are calculated at £675, a benefit-cost ratio of 20 to 1. I do not want to go into

all the figures, because the Government can examine them themselves, but this study, moving to the illegitimate child, says that, as against a cost figure of £34 a year, the benefits are estimated at £4,352, a benefit-cost ratio of 128 to 1.
This report deserves very considerable study.

Dr. Miller: Would the hon. Member accept, though, in order that the public does not get the impression that Parliament wishes to prevent children from being born if people want them to be born, that this is a matter which we feel should be left entirely to the people concerned, and that it is a matter of making family planning facilities available to those people who want them? If people want to go ahead and have children, we are not objecting to the cost which would have to be borne by the State.

Mr. Steel: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member says. I am trying to set this argument in the context of the Under-Secretary's argument in Committee that, according to him, if we spent more money from the National Health Service budget on what we are asking for, savings would have to be made elsewhere. That is not true, because one must look outside the National Health Service budget for the savings that would be shown.
My third quotation is from a report published in April this year by the Office of Health Economics entitled "Family Planning in Britain". It states:
The potential benefits from a comprehensive family planning service lie in the prevention of these sometimes disastrous, personal, social and economic consequences of the birth of unwanted children. Real and tangible benefits can clearly be derived from raising the quality of life of both parents and children.
Again, that is a report which, I hope, has been or will be studied by the Government.
The last of my four quotations, the most recent of all, is from last weekend's annual representative meeting of the British Medical Association held in Southampton. I do not think anyone would accuse the BMA of being irresponsible, adventurous or outrageously radical in this matter.
That meeting passed two interesting resolutions. The first was simply
That a national and uniform family planning service should be set up, including the provision of free planning advice and equipment by general practitioners.
Its second resolution was
That the conference views with concern the general public disregard for personal and social responsibility manifest by the high rate of abortion and urges the Government without delay to institute programmes (a) to educate the individual in a responsible attitude towards overpopulation, (b) to provide comprehensive family planning under the National Health Service; and that additional money be made available to finance these programmes.
I say again that in the face of these very weighty reports and views that have come forward since the Bill was first drafted, we are entitled to say to the Government: "Do not make any hasty decisions tonight but please undertake to us that you will study these reports and that in another place you will consider yet again the Amendments which we have been pressing on the Government to remove from the Bill the quite outdated and antiquated idea that somehow there should be power to charge for family planning in the new forward-looking health service which we hope to establish in this legislation."

Sir John Gilmour: The giving of advice referred to in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's Amendment is an important matter but it is unfortunate that it appears in brackets, as if it were an afterthought and not important. It is very important, and, if anything, I should like to see it underlined. I wonder why it appears in brackets.

Mr. Carmichael: We are pleased with what we have got from the Government although, naturally, we would have much preferred the Amendments we suggested in Committee to have been accepted. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) had a great deal of validity and I hope that the Minister will give a great deal more study to the matter.
I would say to hon. Members who have spoken that I do not regard the Government's Amendment as unimportant. While I should like them to go a great deal further, this is a large step forward, and I hope that the rate of progress will be

increased. Even over the last five years there has been a considerable change of attitude. I am glad that the Government have put down the Amendment, and I hope that it bodes well for the future. There are powers in subsection (2) which enable the Government at any time to decide that the service shall be free.
As amended, Clause 8(2) would read:
Regulations may provide for the recovery of charges from persons availing themselves of any service under the foregoing subsection (except advice on contraception), and may provide for the remission of any such charge, in whole or in part…
Will the Minister say what is meant by "advice on contraception"? Is he suggesting that consultancy fees will be paid to consultants who work with the Family Planning Association? Will health boards be directly empowered to pay consultants working in Family Planning Association clinics or is the intention that area boards will ultimately take over the functions of Family Planning Association clinics? That may be desirable in certain parts of the country but the work of the F.P.A. deserves recognition and in many parts of the country the F.P.A. may be the best organisation to do the job.
Aberdeen, through the local authority, provides free an extremely comprehensive family planning service, including both advice and appliances. Local authority health service duties are to be taken over by the area boards. Where an area has a high and progressive standard of family planning advice, will the Minister confirm that that area will not be made to conform to an all-Scotland standard put out by the Department? Will the health board take on the job at present done by the local authority and provide a less comprehensive service?
There are areas in which the local authority has not provided such a good service as has Aberdeen, and the Government may therefore set standards which are considerably lower than the best at present provided. We want the whole of Scotland to have the best, but may we at least have an assurance from the Minister that there will not be a reduction in standards to comply with a lower standard of unformity which may be administratively easier? Will the Minister also give us a bit more hope for the foreseeable future on Amendment No. 4?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: Although I accept the general spirit that lies behind the Amendment, may I try to change the emphasis of this discussion? It seems to me that there is a call for more self-discipline in these matters, whether it be in terms of the size of families or in other respects such as the consumption of liquor. Is not the Under-Secretary of State being urged to devote resources to dealing with the effects of human actions rather than to the matter of prevention? In other words, has not the permissive society gone much too far? For example, in the light of the excess consumption of strong liquor society is asked to provide special drying-out clinics. This seems to me to be all wrong. Therefore, in future we in society must direct our thoughts to prevention rather than to allocating expenditure in trying to rectify human excesses in one respect or another.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful for what has been said about the Amendment and for the fact that we have had a constructive debate. The tone of the debate reflects the fact that the Government are conducting a full-scale review of the family planning service—a review which has not yet been completed. The review takes account of such publications as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel); I have read them and I know that they are very valuable indeed. They are certainly being considered in the major review which is now going ahead.
We must also accept that family planning is a relatively new service in Scotland and, I am glad to say, is developing fast. At present 52 out of the 56 local authorities provide some form of family planning facilities.
Advice and treatment at the clinics for medical reasons is free. As the Bill stands, there will be no charge for treatment or for appliances for social reasons unless regulations are laid before the House to allow for charging. This will have to be done before April, 1974, if charging is to take place subsequent to the appointed day in the Act. Therefore, long before then the Government's review will have been completed, and

in the light of the decisions we shall have to see whether it will be necessary to lay regulations before the House to provide for charging.
As hon. Members know, at the moment the majority of local authorities charge for the facilities that they provide, though not in the case of Aberdeen. In thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) for his remarks, I ought perhaps to point out that if the advice of a consultant is required for a special case at a family planning clinic, that is provided free. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the Family Planning Association throughout Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman said, the present responsibilities of the local authorities will be taken over by the health boards, and I have no doubt that areas such as Aberdeen which have very comprehensive family planning clinics at the moment will continue to do so under the health boards.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has great experience in these matters. I ought perhaps to point out to him that the whole tenor of our debates in Committee was directed to our desire to see a really comprehensive and effective family planning service in Scotland. I appreciate his point about cost-effectiveness. However, we have looked at it always more positively from the standpoint that we do not want to see unwanted children born if it can be prevented by giving advice at the right moment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. William Hannan) mentioned the importance of self-discipline. This is part of the theme that will be developed in the publicity campaign that we shall be launching in Scotland during the coming autumn.

Dr. Miller: I hesitated to intervene when my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) was speaking. I caution the hon. Gentleman not to labour this point too much. Unwanted children are not alway the result of lack of self-discipline or lack of self-restraint. Although I commend my hon. Friend's comments on this, perhaps he is unaware of the human mechanism: it is quite possible for a couple to restrain themselves and yet to produce children,


and for another couple not to and to produce no children.

Mr. Munro: This discussion is becoming rather technical. But I am surprised that the hon. Member for Kelvingrove reckons that he knows more about the facts of life than the hon. Member for Maryhill.
We are determined to have a first-class family planning system in Scotland, and it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, carried out by the health boards. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will accept the assurances that I have given that the Government are involved at the moment in a very detailed full-scale review of the family planning services and that, at the end of the day, they will find that there is a service for which the whole country will be grateful.

Amenement agreed to.

Clause 13

HEALTH BOARDS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 6, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
This is a traditional Scottish Amendment to alter "may" to "shall", but it is an important change which was recommended to the Committee by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes). After careful thought, which I promised I would give to the hon. Gentleman's speech at columns 215 and 216, I have put down the Amendment to ensure that the health boards provide a scheme for consideration by the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

LOCAL HEALTH COUNCILS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 13, leave out "Subject to subsection (2) below".
This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 10 which will be moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Wood-side (Mr. Carmichael). In Committee we discussed in detail whether we should make it a definite requirement for area health boards to initiate a health council. After listening to the debate and the fears

expressed by the Opposition that it might be possible for an area board to avoid having a health council I agreed to the hon. Gentleman's proposal to delete subsection (2).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that it will be in order to discuss my Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 13, leave out Clause 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I understood that the three Amendments to the Clause were being taken together.

Mr. Carmichael: As the Minister said, in Committee we took exception to the fact that it might be possible for a health board not to set up health councils. Incidentally, perhaps inadvertently the Minister spoke about a health board setting up its own health council. In fact there will almost certainly be a number of councils for each health board, not just one council.
The Minister gave examples of where the Secretary of State may accept that a health board need not set up health councils because there may be a local authority that is perfect for the area. We felt that there was a certain ambiguity about the provision. We did not feel that the whole Clause should be left out, and we are therefore glad that the Minister has facilitated the making of this Amendment.

Mr. David Steel: I remain unhappy with the provisions of the Clause, even after the removal of subsection (2). The matter was discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. Unless it is clear that the local health councils are to have some democratic content, or that the local area health boards will, in some way, be answerable to the House, either through Members or through the new local authority structure within Scotland, I have strong reservations about the setting up in limbo of advisory bodies which have no responsibility to anybody.
12 midnight
There is a tendency, the more organisations or Government Departments we


hive off to independent organisations, automatically to counter-balance the situation in every piece of legislation. It happens under all Governments. It seems that if we set up some sort of public machinery we must go through the motions of setting up checking mechanisms. We have organisations like the Post Office Users Consultative Council, the electricity consultative committees and the gas consultative committees—there are any number of them.

Mr. Robert Hughes: They have no power.

Mr. Steel: The public's awareness of their existence is at a low level. They have no powers and are responsible to no one. I am chary of setting up yet another piece of mechanism of that kind. That is why we have tabled what may appear on the surface to be a destructive Amendment to remove Clause 14 from the Bill. It would be far healthier to say, "We will not attempt to set up the machinery. We will not go through the facade of having some sort of consultative machinery. We will retain the right of area health boards to be answerable in some way through the Minister either to the House or, alternatively, to the new regional councils which are being set up in legislation which will be before the House next Session."
I am unhappy about the establishment of bodies which will float around in limbo, thus adding to the number of appointments which may be made by the Secretary of State on goodness knows what sort of basis. It does not strike me as a good provision in an otherwise excellent Bill.

Mr. Monro: I shall not detain the House long in responding to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) who I know, because of his meticulous care of detail, will have read the fairly long and important discussions which we had in Committee. In the main there was a general welcome from both sides of the Committee for the setting up of the councils. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member should feel that the provision might not be worth while. I know, as he does, of the tremendous spirit of co-operation within the National Health Service in the Borders which applies also

to Common Ridings and rugby football. Matters are dealt with extremely smoothly. I am sure that may be the basis of some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments later this evening.
I apologise for the slip I made earlier. Of course, there can be a number of health councils within each health board area. Bearing in mind that there will be a number of health councils, they will be, despite what some hon. Gentlemen have said, an important check on the boards. The councils will have regular meetings and will be serviced by the boards. Councils will have the right to ask representatives of the board to go to their meetings and explain matters of policy and listen to their constructive views and criticisms. I hope to see the councils being positive and constructive rather than carping.
A number of representatives will be appointed by the local authorities to the health councils. The hon. Gentleman must know from his knowledge of children's hearings that there has been no shortage of able people coming forward to do this sort of work. I think that will happen in respect of the health councils.

Mr. David Steel: Surely that is not a correct analogy. The people who have volunteered to come forward for children's hearings are doing an executive, a positive, job. There is no suggestion that the health councils would have any executive functions.

Mr. Monro: I take the point that the health councils will have no executive powers but I was pointing out that a large number of people have come forward voluntarily and enthusiastically to do this sort of work—people like those in the "Friends" of various hospitals throughout Scotland. I believe that we must have these health councils set up to keep area boards in close touch with the hospitals at local level. I believe also that given a strong lead by the boards and by the Secretary of State they will do a most worth-while job. I accept and welcome Amendment No. 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 17, at end insert:
'(c) requiring local health councils to submit annual reports on their activities to


their Health Board and requiring Health Boards to transmit a copy of any such report to the Secretary of State;'.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), in a number of valuable contributions in Committee, suggested that it should be a duty of the health councils to submit annual reports to their activities to the boards, which should then forward them to the Secretary of State. I promised to give the suggestion careful thought. Having done so, I agree that there are a great many advantages in it. It will not only ensure that the area health boards had the views of the councils annually—although I hope there will be monthly or six-weekly reports—but also that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to know what the health councils are thinking at the grass roots of the National Health Service. I had pleasure in putting down Amendment No. 11 in order to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his kind remarks about me and I express our appreciation for his constructive attitude towards a matter we think of importance.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We had a great deal of discussion in Committee about local health councils, their procedure and their right to submit reports—indeed, about the view that they should be required to submit reports. We agreed that Clause 14 should be retained but were worried about the lack of control there is to be—even less control by ordinary people or even by elected representatives in the new set-up because we are losing the democratic element in the National Health Service which lay in the local authority health services. What little democratic control there was is now gone, and therefore we were concerned to see that the local health councils should be placed on an important footing.
We discovered in discussion with those dealing with these questions outside that there is fear among regional board members that the local health councils would simply be rubber stamps. Bodies such as the Post Office users' consultative committees are without teeth. On the other hand, some, other members of regional boards feel that the health councils might have too much power without responsibility.

Their fear is opposite to that which we feel. That was one reason we thought there should be annual reports to the health boards and through the health boards, to the Secretary of State.
Even since the Amendment was put down, a point has arisen which had escaped everyone before—that there is nothing in the Clause which says that this report shall see the light of day. The only people entitled to see them are the area health boards and the Secretary of State.
If these reports are to have full and real value they should be seen by the public. Although the Bill is silent on the requirement to publish, it may be the Secretary of State's intention that the combined reports of the health councils should be made public as parliamentary or non-parliamentary papers, available in the Vote Office and to be bought by the public from the Stationery Office.
I do not know the Secretary of State's intentions because we did not discuss this in Committee, but if he has not thought about this perhaps he will now and, if there is an opportunity, perhaps he will put down an Amendment in another place to give himself permissive powers to public or put a statutory duty on himself to publish these reports. It should be done.
Apart from Parliament having the right to examine these reports to see how legislation which has passed this House is operated, it would give a check on how things are operating and might change our attitude to other Bills to correct or develop the National Health Service. These councils are supposed to represent consumer interest. That is their primary purpose and, if they are to represent the consumer interest properly and fully, the consumers should see the results of what they are doing.
It has escaped attention up to now that there is no provision for the reports to see the light of day. They should, and it would be in the spirit of Clause 14. Therefore I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Secretary of State that it is his intention to publish and that, if he has no powers to do so, those powers will be created in another place.

Mr. Monro: I should like to clarify that point right away. It never crossed


my mind that the reports should not be published. I should have thought it absolutely essential that maximum publicity be given to the health council reports in the local Press in the board areas, and the Secretary of State will be looking at them himself.
I would expect, too, that the health councils would always be in touch with their Members of Parliament and would send them copies of the reports. If that did not happen, the Secretary of State would make certain that hon. Members received copies of reports of the health councils in their own areas and, if they wished, in other areas. I am all for maximum publicity.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

LOCAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, Amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 4, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to consider the following Amendments:

No. 13, in page 9, line 6, leave out 'committee' and insert 'sub-committee'.

No. 14, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'committee' and insert 'sub-committee'.

No. 15, in page 9, line 8, leave out 'committee' and insert 'sub-committee'.

No. 16, in page 9, line 9, leave out 'committee' and insert 'sub-committee'.

No. 17, in page 9, line 10, leave out 'committee' and insert 'sub-committee'.

No. 18, in page 9, line 11, at end insert:
'and shall be so recognised only after the establishment of a local consultative committee as mentioned in subsection (4) below'.

No. 19, in page 9, line 24 [Clause 16], leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Steel: The Under-Secretary moved an Amendment to leave out "may" and to insert "shall"just now, and said that it was traditional. I hope I shall not be thought to be against tradition in seeking to move the opposite.
This is purely a paving Amendment to a whole series which appears to have puzzled a number of hon. Members.
12.15 a.m.
Basically, a simple point is involved in this complicated series of Amendments. As I said in the Second Reading debate, the Bill makes provision for the setting up of professional consultative committees within each area. As drafted, it suggests that the Secretary of State shall recognise particular medical consultative committees—a medical committee, a dental committee, a nurses' and midwives' committee, a pharmaceutical committee and an optical committee is suggested. In subsection (4) the Clause provides that if they want to these disciplines can get together and form a joint or omnibus committee, crossing the disciplines, and that if the Secretary of State thinks that that is a good thing he may recognise them also.
I think that that is putting it the wrong way round. If we are moving towards a comprehensive service we should discourage these harsh demarcation lines and encourage in new legislation as much cross-disciplinary consultation as possible between the different professions. I therefore suggested in the Second Reading debate that the Clause should be redrafted. I do not challenge the main intention behind it, but I believe that a multi-disciplinary consultative committee, representing the different branches of the medical profession, should be the body that the Secretary of State "shall" recognise, and that he "may" then recognise individual discipline committees set out underneath—such as a dental sub-committee of the consultative committee. It would have been better if the legislation had been framed in that way.
I ended my Second Reading speech by saying that I should be interested to hear the Secretary of State's immediate reaction. I was then—and I still am—because I did not get a reaction from the Minister in his summing-up. I therefore thought it right to attempt the redrafting that I have suggested. I do not stand by the details, but quite an important principle is involved in what I have attempted to put forward. It would be an improvement if the Bill were redrafted in this way. It should still be interested to hear the Government's reaction and the defence of the way in which they have drafted the Bill.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the approach of the hon. Member to this series of


Amendments. I also appreciate the thinking behind them—the idea of a multi-disciplinary committee. The hon. Member explained in the Second Reading debate that this arrangement seemed to work well in the Border region, with sub-committees for medical, dental and other services within the health service.
I accept that it works well in the Borders and may work well in other areas with comparatively small populations and, therefore, small health service resources, but it seems to the Secretary of State and to me that many practical difficulties would arise in the larger health board areas where committees have to be set up by statute as a mandatory source of advice. First, it would be difficult in the larger areas to decide the right proportional representation. I know that we would get expert advice from the hon. Member on proportional representation, but it might not be so easy to get that advice from the profession.
It might be unacceptable to any of the major professions to find that the advice they had decided upon after careful consideration in a sub-committee was modified by a multi-disciplinary group before submission to the health board. It would mean a great deal of self-discipline by the professional sub-committees to accept the overall decision of a multi-disciplinary professional group, particularly if they were doctors or dentists or other closely-knit professions.
Subsection (4) does not prevent a multi-disciplinary committee being set up if those in the area so wish. I expect it to happen in the Borders and perhaps the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland and possibly other regions. We are in no way preventing it. I agree that the Bill does not give a positive lead in this direction, because of the practical difficulties that we think over-ride the ideas the hon. Gentleman put forward. I think that when he has given thought to what I have said, particularly in relation to the larger areas, such as the West and Glasgow, he will see that, while his idea may be attractive in theory and may work well in practice in some of the smaller areas, it would not work in the bigger areas.
We have given careful thought to the hon. Gentleman's view, but I cannot accept it. Perhaps on reflection he might be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. David Steel: I recognise that there is always a danger in arguing from the particular to the general, and I immediately accept the Under-Secretary's point that we cannot necessarily apply to a large region arguments based on experience of something that works well in a small region. The hon. Gentleman said, in a revealing remark, that the Bill did not prevent the formation of a multi-disciplinary committee. It should go further, and encourage it. At the very least, as a traditional Scottish gesture, the hon. Gentleman might have accepted Amendment No. 19, to substitute "shall" for "may" in subsection (4), which allows for the formation of such a multi-disciplinary committee. The Bill should allow for regional variation. Where a multi-disciplinary committee is set up, the emphasis in the legislation should be that it is something the Secretary of State will regard as being of prime importance, if it is appropriate to the area, and that he will recognise it. He should not have a discretionary power to recognise it if the spirit so moves him. The emphasis in the Bill continues to be on the individual specialist committees. Perhaps in another place a minor Amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 19 might be considered. It would have been a friendly gesture if the hon. Gentleman had accepted that Amendment at this late hour.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move, Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 2, at end insert
',and may appoint to any sub-committee persons who are not members of the committee'.
The Amendment makes it clear that local consultative committees may appoint sub-committees which include co-opted members as well as members of the parent committee. Legal advice is that as subsection (8) is drafted co-option to sub-committees would not be possible. That is an undesirable and unintentional restriction. The main committees will undoutedly wish to co-opt persons with relevant background or experience to specialist sub-committees, such as a general practice sub-committee of the area medical committee.
The BMA has been consulted, and has confirmed that the specific inclusion of the power of co-option is essential for doctors to organise their professional advisory machinery along the accepted lines.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

SCOTTISH HEALTH SERVICE PLANNING COUNCIL

Mr. Monro: I be to move, Amendment No. 21, in page 10, leave out lines 28 to 31.
In Committee the Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), pressed very hard that there should be no exclusion from the report to the Secretary of State by the Scottish Health Services Planning Council. I explained in Committee that there was no sinister intent behind this but that it was, perhaps, for a legal purpose if there was anything which was sub judice. But on further reflection, and bearing in mind particularly that the advice to the Secretary of State should be put on record fully, I tabled the Amendment and I hope that it will find acceptance from the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28

STAFF COMMISSION

Dr. Miller: I beg to move, Amendment No. 22, in page 17, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
'(a) to reassess in consultation with the trade unions and other representative organisations concerned, the arrangements for the recruitment, appointment, promotion, remuneration and conditions of service of staff, and to advise the Secretary of State and the appropriate authorities of changes which it may recommend to such arrangements'.
I move the Amendment on behalf of myself and 10 of my hon. Friends who tender their apologies for being unable to be present tonight.
The Amendment refers to what will be known as the Scottish National Health Service Staff Commission. We feel that the Commission's functions should be much more explicit than at present

adumbrated in subsection 3(a), which concerns the recruitment, appointment and promotion of staff.
In a modern context, this should be a matter for the trade union movement. At present, the Whitley Council organisation deals with it. I have done some research into the Whitley Council. I have in my hand a booklet published in April, 1920, entitled "Whitley Councils—What they are and what they are doing", by the right hon. J. H. Whitley, M.P. In this booklet appear the terms of reference of the original Whitley Committee. They make interesting reading, particularly in the light of what is happening today. There are two terms of reference, as follows:
"(1) To make and consider suggestions for securing a permanent improvement in the relations between Employers and Workmen.
(2) To recommend means for securing that industrial conditions affecting the relations between Employers and Workmen shall be systematically reviewed by those concerned."
The Government could, perhaps, do well to pay heed to those two terms of reference proposed for the original Whitley Council. Incidentally, the price of that booklet was 6d. There was another one, priced at 4d., "The Whitley System Explained—for Civil Servants and Others", which went into considerable detail on the sort of problems with which the Whitley Councils were intended to deal.
12.30 a.m.
We contend that the Bill does not enshrine the spirit of negotiation in the modern context and that the old Whitley Council concept is out-moded and should be replaced by something else, by negotiation and consultation with the trade unions and other representative organisations concerned in the National Health Service, so as to give employees more equitable arrangements than they have at present.
In an earlier debate, I said that, with the recent increases, the average remuneration for the general medical practitioner in Scotland was £8,000 to £8,500 a year. Unfortunately, for many employees in the service the scales of payment fall drastically below anything received by the average practitioner. There are about 10,000 medical laboratory technicians employed in the National Health Service. The pay which these essential people receive is abysmally low,


and the Whitley Council arrangements have made only marginal improvements in their salary scales, especially for the lower and middle grades, though the top grades are a little better off. A highly-skilled senior technician, for instance, still receives less than £2,000 a year.
The purpose of the Amendment is to bring negotiations into a different arena, to ensure that there is adequate representation by the trade unions, particularly the one which is most involved in representing the medical laboratory technicians, to which I have the honour to belong, but bringing in also other trade unions representing Health Service employees. The time has come for the antiquated and creaking Whitley Council negotiating machinery for salaries and conditions to be replaced by something which is more in keeping with modern concepts of negotiation between an employer, which in this instance is the State, and employees who are carrying out very important tasks in the health service.
I must thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have had a hand in this, for permitting this Amendment to be discussed. It did not have in Committee as full a discussion as it should have had. There is a very strong feeling among the trade unions representing employees in the National Health Service who perform a most valuable service that their opportunities for putting forward proposals about remuneration and conditions of service are not adequate or satisfactory because of the outmoded Whitley Council machinery.
I ask the Under-Secretary to give thought to this matter. The Bill will be a blueprint for the proposals in the English Bill, and many of our English counterparts in the House will be putting forward views similar to those which I have expressed.

Mr. Monro: An absolutely identical Amendment to this Amendment was discussed in Committee where the case was ably put by the hon. Member for Both-well (Mr. James Hamilton). At the end of the debate the hon. Gentleman accepted the Government's case and withdrew the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller) has put forward two points. The first is that the Whitley

Council machinery is out of date and should be replaced. Secondly, he has doubts about the staff commission. As I said in Committee, the Bill is not a vehicle for changing the Whitley Council machinery. It has worked well for a long time, but it will have to be modified subsequent to the passing of the Bill. The existing Whitley machinery is based on voluntary agreement, and any new machinery would need to be discussed between management and the staff of the new authorities once they have been set up. It certainly is not possible to include in the Bill a change of this nature at this stage.
The Staff Commission, in its shadow form, if I may call it that, has already been set up and is ready to begin to ask the different organisations and shades of opinion for views on the transfer of staff. The hon. Member knows, as I know, and I know that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) knows, that the Staff Commission will consult the trade unions. Indeed, a member of the commission is a very distinguished trade unionist himself. I have given assurances in the House and outside that those presently in the Health Service would have very special consideration throughout the deliberations of the Staff Commission.
We would hope that there would be the very minimum, if any, redundancies in Scotland. We must accept that some senior staff may have to move to different areas to retain their senior positions, but I think it is clear from what I have said before, particularly in my detailed speech in Committte, that the Staff Commission will work well, and it has been generally accepted in Scotland.
The Whitley machinery should not be disturbed by this Bill at this stage, and I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, as his hon. Friend the Member for Both well withdrew his in Committee.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate that it is rather difficult in a Bill of this description to make an Amendment with such far-reaching and comprehensive aspects as this one. I am sure that the Under-secretary accepts that there are very grave discrepancies in the operation of the Whitley negotiating machinery, but in view of the fact that he indicates that


the Staff Commission will operate more closely with the trade union movement, and that, perhaps, we should wait to see what evolves from this type of collaboration, I, with some degree of reluctance, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45

BODIES AND ACTION SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION

Mr. Monro: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 26, line 29, leave out from first 'or' to end of line 30 and insert
'in consequence of having been unfairly or unreasonably treated'.
This is a technical Amendment. It was suggested to us by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) in Committee. Because of what he said, and in order that the wording here should be consistent with that in the rest of the Bill, I consider this the most appropriate Amendment to propose. It will add a degree of clarity to the Clause.

Mr. John Smith: I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House on this matter. As the Under-Secretary says, this is really a technical point. I accept that the grammar used here by the Government is more felicitous than that of the Amendment for which I asked, I am glad that the Minister has taken the opportunity to improve the grammar.
12.45 a.m.
Before we leave the point, however, it is worth reminding the House that this is probably the most important of all the provisions in the Bill relating to the Health Service Commissioner. They are of fundamental importance because they prescribe the area of the jurisdiction he will have in the operation of his functions under the Bill.
Throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee I had reservations about whether the formula used for describing that jurisdiction was the most happy one. The Government have taken the formula used for the Parliamentary Commissioner and transposed it mutatis mutandis to the

Bill. There are obviously conveniences in doing so. I still have reservations whether we have adequately denned in the best way the duties that the Health Service Commissioner should perform and the area of his jurisdiction. However, the Amendment widens the scope a little and might allow more cases to come within his jurisdiction if he took too narrow a view of his jurisdiction as the subsection was originally drawn.
I am glad to repeat the appreciation I expressed in Committee of the Under-Secretary's willingness to look into the matter so constructively. He took me rather by surprise in so promptly accepting the Amendment in Committee, which perhaps explains some of the lack of felicity in the grammar of the Bill without this Amendment.
This will be an important aspect of the service. When England and Wales set up a health commissioner, they will no doubt look carefully at what the Scots have done. We gave the matter careful consideration in Committee. I can only hope that the Clause and the Bill prove effective in practice, as I am sure that both sides of the House are equally anxious that the commissioner should have as wide a jurisdiction as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 26, line 44, at end insert:
'This proviso shall always apply to any person aggrieved where the cause for complaint is within a body in which that person is employed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): We can take at the same time Amendment No. 28, in Clause 46, page 28, Line 6, at end insert
but this provision shall not apply in the case of an aggrieved person who is in the employ of the body subject to investigation'

Mr. Carmichael: Our representations in Committee showed that we were slightly unhappy that there was to be no direct access to the commissioner. We felt that it was not always necessary to go via the boards and follow the normal process of complaint with all complaints. Our feeling was that in some cases—originally, we thought in all cases—it would be better for an aggrieved person to be able to approach the commissioner direct.
Our view was not accepted by the Government. We have put down these Amendments not merely to string out the process but because we are unhappy that there is no possibility of direct access. We did not, perhaps, reach the stage of clarifying our minds sufficiently in Committee to give examples of people who we thought should have direct access, but we have now come down fairly firmly to the view that at least people directly employed by an area board should have direct access to the commissioner.
We do not, in the words of one of my hon. Friends in Committee, believe that there is evidence of a large body of unsatisfied complaints awaiting the arrival of the commissioner in office. We believe, however, that even if there are only a few unsatisfied complaints or smouldering complaints, they can cause a great deal of trouble and ultimately apathy within the organisation and, in some cases, unworthy rumours about it.
The staff should not be required to go through all the processes that members of the public are required to go through. People inside the organisation are in a special relationship with the senior staff who are responsible for promotion and the allocation of duties.
If the staff were to have direct access to the commissioner, I am aware that there is always the possibility of malicious and frivolous complaints. But people who are disposed to that practice will always find ways to further their complaints, and that argument does not bear close examination. The commissioner will be able to see through malicious and frivolous complaints and get to the heart of the problem.
As has been brought out in debate on a previous Amendment, the Health Service Commissioner would have no jurisdiction over trade union matters, which would be dealt with by the staff commission. I am talking of complaints arising from the peculiar nature of the work which could perfectly properly be investigated by the commissioner if they came from another source and which the staff might feel would be blocked if they were made through the board.
The employees know what is going on, and there is value in their being able to make complaints. Some of the recent revelations of the goings-on in mental

hospitals came from the staff and I am sure that the Minister would not wish to discourage unfortunate happenings being brought to light. In private schools and approved schools the staff are the only people who can raise these matters. They do so sometimes at considerable risk to their future promotion, and we are all grateful to them. We all know that the staff of the health service do a marvellous job, but the hospital and medical services are so hierarchical that protection is required for staff who give genuine information on abuses and dereliction of duty.
I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit, if not the words, of the Amendment. We have given serious thought to the idea that staff should have direct access to the commissioner, and if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment we hope that he will at least make a recommendation on these lines in another place.

Mr. Monro: Much as I should like to help the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) following the sincere way in which he has spoken on the Amendment—and I know that he has given this matter a great deal of thought—I feel that we must be quite clear about the situation.
I am sure we both agree that on personnel matters, such as conditions of pay and service, it would be wrong to have access to the Health Service commissioner. We are here looking specifically at matters within the Health Service which are brought to light by employees of the board or hospital concerned. We must also accept the situation that if hospital staff find that a system in a hospital or in any part of the Health Service is not working correctly, then it is their duty to report it to their superiors and, if necessary, take it right through to the board. This would be normal business practice and I should like to think that it would happen in the Health Service. If somebody in the Health Service sees obvious failure in the system and feels that his complaint is not being given proper attention by the Health Board, it would be permissible for him to put it to the Health Commissioner.
The hon. Gentleman argued that unless the person had direct access he might himself be victimised in the future. But


he would also agree that a member of the staff could hardly go direct to the Health Service commissioner and remain anonymous. The Health Service commissioner would have to go back to the Health Board and say, "Mr. X has complained about such and such a service—what are your answers to the complaint?" I do not think the person could avoid his name becoming known to the board; it would be bound to become known in the end.
We feel that, by and large, we should not put Health Service staff in a special position of having direct access to the Health Service commissioner since it would put them in a rather special position. My right hon. Friend and I want to see the best of staff relationships between employees and management and if we do not encourage in every possible way a chain of information between employees and management we will not be providing the best service we can for the patient. If an employee has a special complaint, we have a reserve power to go through the normal procedure in relation to a Health Service matter as opposed to a personnel matter.
It would be wrong to encourage any hope of an Amendment on this matter being tabled in another place. I have given the matter a great deal of thought, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman at least give the assurance that nothing he is saying tonight about the special position of certain Health Service employees will be used by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services when the corresponding legislation on England and Wales is passed through the House? It has been suggested to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that a lot of the pressure in England and Wales on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Health Service arises because of disquiet about certain aspects of the mental health service. We in Scotland are privileged to have the Mental Welfare Commission and, as a result, we do not have these worries. But certainly in England and Wales the fear is that this pioneering legislation may prejudice points that hon. Members wish

to raise and that they may find what is contained in this Bill being used against them.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Monro: I intended to mention the point about the Mental Welfare Commission having such an important and unique part to play in Scotland. But it would be wrong for me to give any assurance of such an important nature without considering carefully what has been said. However, I shall make certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is aware of what has been said in this debate, and I am sure that he will bear it in mind when he is drafting legislation next year.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 27, line 4, at end insert:
'except in so far as it is necessary for him to form a view on whether the professional person or persons concerned had put themselves in a position to make a reasonable judgment and had acted upon it'.
The addition of these words is an attempt to mitigate actions which are not subject to investigation in Schedule 5. By inserting the words, we think that we shall be able to open up some of the actions which at present are not subject to investigation.
In paragraph 1 of the Schedule we find that none of the actions of medical practitioners, dental practitioners, pharmacists, ophthalmic or dispensing opticians are open to investigation if they are taken in pursuance of their contracts under Part IV of the Act of 1947. It is clear from paragraph 2 that action taken in connection with the diagnosis of illness or disease or the care or treatment of a patient would not be open to investigation if, in the opinion of the commissioner, it was taken solely in the exercise of clinical judgment. We feel that that cuts out far too wide an area of investigation.
We rehearsed this argument in Committee. We have always said we did not imagine that complaints against general practitioners and others were widespread. We quoted the figures of complaints for all the different sections of the Health Service. Those were for the year before


the current report. We now have the up-to-date report. I have no intention of wearying the House with the latest figures, though I think that the Under-Secretary owes us an explanation of his views.
In Committee I pointed out that in his initial announcement on 22nd February the Secretary of State for Social Services spoke on his own behalf and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he said that clinical judgment would not be open to investigation. I raised the question of the discussion document put out by the Department. It seemed that there had been some back-tracking between the issuing of the document and the Secretary of State for Social Services making his announcement. One gathered from the discussion document that the commissioner would have power to investigate whether a medical practitioner had taken reasonable action and had put himself in a position to make a reasonable judgment. It was suggested in that document that the commissioner might, where necessary, have the advice of a professional adviser in making up his mind and that there might be a panel of such advisers.
It may be that it was because the discussion spilled over into a second sitting of the Committee that we did not get an adequate answer to the points we made. I do not see why the medical profession should have immunity from investigation by the commissioner. I know the Minister will say that there will still be the professional committees to consider the professional competence of a doctor, that there will be the possibility of disciplinary proceedings against a doctor, a dentist or a pharmacist and that possibly the joint professional and lay committees of the existing health executives which look into complaints by patients against general practitioners will be brought in in another form. That should not preclude the commissioner from having a responsibility to take action, however, because it may be that even after all these channels have been used by the complainant he will still feel that the whole thing has been rigged in favour of the medical profession. Indeed, he may feel that there is so much of an in-service investigation that it is an old-pals-together act.
I hope that committees never act in that way. I am sure that complaints are investigated by people with completely open minds, but the effect of bringing in the

commissioner—apart from discovering the odd complaint which has not been dealt with properly—would be to bring to the whole system a feeling of openness and that everything was being properly investigated by an independent person. I hope that the Minister has looked carefully at what we said in Committee and that even at this late hour he is prepared to accept the Amendment.
This is an important Amendment. It offers protection for the individual. The clinical judgment of the general practitioner is not under scrutiny. I know that a G.P. can make an honest mistake, and in no way should be be chastised for that if there is room for doubt. The commissioner will be able to discover whether the G.P. has approached his job in the correct manner and spirit. If that is done, a lot of the remaining doubts about how things are to be handled can be removed.

Dr. Miller: I merely want to ask the Minister to impress upon the medical profession that it would be in the interests of doctors if complaints against them were investigated by someone like the Parliamentary Commissioner, in this case the Health Service Commissioner—someone with legal experience. There is no doubt that it would be to the benefit not only of patients but of individual members of the medical profession that any allegation made against them should be investigated, not by people who have a vested interest in the situation but by someone completely detached and objective who could form an opinion in which his own feelings and emotions were not involved. That would have mutual benefit for the patient and for the doctor. It is a matter which perhaps the medical profession, through its political representation, does not accept, but it is a matter which I believe the majority of ordinary practitioners would be prepared to accept if it were put to them. I ask the Under-Secretary to look at the matter from the point of view that not only would the Amendment do the job that it is felt should be done but it would be for the benefit also of the average general practitioner.

Mr. Monro: I do not hide from the House that the question of clinical judgment was one of the most difficult to solve in preparing the Health Service Commissioner Clauses. One of the objects of the discussion papers, which hon.
Members found interesting and helpful, was to sift through evidence coming back from the professions after they had studied the document. It is not surprising that we used the information which came back to make alterations to Clauses here and there throughout the Bill.
I appreciate the thought which hon. Gentlemen have put into the Amendment but at the end of the day I shall have to ask them to consider withdrawing it. The Amendment seeks to confer wider powers on the commissioner in relation to matters within his jurisdiction. The discretion vested in the commissioner under Clause 45(6) is widely drawn and clearly enables him to undertake any parliamentary investigation needed to establish where a case falls outside his terms of reference. The main ground of exclusion from investigation by the commissioner—that is, clinical judgment—is worded equally widely. Schedule 5(2) states:
Action taken in connection with the diagnosis of illness or disease or the care or treatment of a patient, being action which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, was taken solely in the exercise of clinical judgment…".
I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) has felt throughout the discussions on the Health Service Commissioner that the medical profession must be prepared to accept much greater responsibility for its clinical judgment than he feels it is prepared to do under the Health Service Commissioner Clauses at the moment. After careful thought we feel that we have come as near as we possibly can to defining clinical judgment. In the context of the Amendment there is concern that it would be possible for a complainer to have a trial run by complaining to the Health Service Commissioner. If he could see that his case was likely to be successful, he could then turn to the courts and possibly sue the doctor for compensation. It would seem wrong that one should have one's cake and eat it.
1.15 a.m.
We went into the matter in detail in Committee. I believe we must return to the point that the Parliamentary Commissioner was never intended to act as a medical auditor, looking at a case perhaps six or 12 months later, with the advantage of hindsight and subsequent examination, and decide whether at the

moment the doctor had to make a decision, perhaps under great stress and hurry, he was wrong.
If we were to change the provision in the Bill we would alter the whole basis of the statutory provisions. This I cannot do in this Bill. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am as disappointed as I was in Committee by the Government's refusal to accept the Amendment. I accept that a discussion document which comes out in the early stages before a Bill is drafted is not meant to be the firm and final view of the Government, and if when there was such a document there was no move by the Government once they had heard the views of those concerned, I would be the first to complain. Indeed, that has been one of our complaints about the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, on which the Government have been inflexible.
We are not therefore complaining about the Government's flexibility on the question of discussions but we are disappointed that the impression has been given, if one compares the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Services with the discussion document, that the vested interests of the medical profession have once again triumphed, as they have almost always triumphed from the early days of discussion of the National Health Service in 1946 and 1947.
When the medical profession, particularly general practitioners, has said what it feels about a topic, every Government have felt it imprudent to go against its wishes. I do not know why Governments quail before general practitioners in particular—except that all of us at times visit a doctor and perhaps are afraid of what he may do to us in the consulting room. But that is an irrational fear.
We would have been happier if the Government had agreed to widen the area of investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. I do not think that the Under-Secretary's argument that by taking a complaint on clinical judgment to the Parliamentary Commissioner a complainant is getting a dry run, and that if he sees the possibility of his complaint succeeding he can sue in a court of law,


is really valid. Unless I have misunderstood the whole purpose of the Parliamentary Commissioner, I do not see that taking a case to him removes from the individual his rights under common law. If the Under-Secretary is saying that by raising a matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner rights in common law are destroyed, this will have to be changed.
The Minister is being inflexible about this but at this time of night a Division would not be welcome, so I have no alternative but to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment. Nevertheless I am not happy about this and I am sorry we are not discussing the matter at a time when we could have gone into it a bit further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46

PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 27, line 39, leave out from 'than' to 'but' in line 41 and insert:
'twelve months from the day on which the matters alleged in the complaint first came to the notice of the person aggrieved'.
I anticipate that this Amendment will be welcome to the Opposition. They argued in Committee that the six months period we had orginally in the Bill was too short if we allowed for "injury time", if that is what I may call it, when complaints are with the area health board.
However, as I promised the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), as reported at cols. 382 and 404 of the Official Report First Scottish Standing Committee on 22nd June, I have looked carefully at this matter. After consultation with my right hon. Friend we decided that it would be possible to increase the period to 12 months from the day when the matters alleged in the complaint first came to the notice of the person aggrieved. This not only clarifies the Clause but gives the Opposition the point they wanted.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Under-secretary for the Amendment. It is a distinct improvement on the Bill. It

became clear in Committee that if there were to be a time limit of six months, there would be an obvious danger that the investigation of the body subject to examination might not be completed in the six months' period.
May I offer a sugestion to the Under-secretary that the material time is the time taken to complete investigations and that he should ask how long it would take to go through the process of investigating, since the person complaining has to go to the investigating body before going to the commissioner.
A working party has been considering the complaints procedure in the Health Service. The Under-Secretary might look at that and, if it turns out that the average period of investigation is a little longer than 12 months, he might consider extending the period.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 28, line 10, leave out 'an aggrieved person' and insert 'a person aggrieved'.
This is to correct a printing error.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

HEALTH BOARDS AND UNIVERSITY LIAISON COMMITTEES

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 38, line 19, leave out from 'medical' to 'and' in line 20 and insert:
'dental, nursing, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic professions'.
This again was an issue raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller). He was very keen and argued persuasively that we should add a number of professions to those listed in the Schedule. I told him that if it were at all possible I would do so, and I have found it possible to do so.

Dr. Miller: On behalf of the dentists, nurses, pharmacists and opticians, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. As a quid pro quo, I offer from them the perhaps slightly tendentious claim that his teeth will receive very bright and shiny attention, his rugger bruises will be nursed with very great care, his


medicines will be even more accurately dispensed than before and his glasses given an appropriate rosy hue.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7

REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 68, column 3, leave out lines 42 to 44.
This Amendment was particularly requested after consultation with the Mental Welfare Commission. In view of the high regard that we all have for the commission in Scotland, I am sure that the House will accept the Amendment. It makes it possible in future for staff to be seconded from the Scottish Office to the commission. If we did not delete these words that would be impossible.

Mr. Carmichael: I welcome the Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself and send our regards to the Mental Welfare Commission. In Committee this matter was discussed in considerable detail. The commission is held in high regard in Scotland.
I thank the Minister for the way he has accepted the advice from hon. Members on this side of the House and the gracious way he has accepted many of our Amendments. I suggest that the evidence of understanding of our Amendments that he has shown has in some ways been a lesson which, had more time been given to the Bill, or had the Government had a few more Scottish Members, would have enabled us to make more improvements.
We are grateful for the Amendments that the Minister has put forward and we hope that on the regulations he will show the same understanding for the wide experience of my hon. Friends in the medical field.

Mr. Monro: I thank the hon. Member for his remarks and for the help I received from his hon. Friends, as well as from my own hon. Friends, in Committee. I am sure we shall find it comparatively rare that we have to discuss the regulations, because we have

thought about them so carefully beforehand.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

RATING AND VALUATION

Resolved,

That the British Railways Board (Amendment of Certified Amount) (Scotland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

Resolved,

That the Electricity Boards (Standard Amount) (Scotland) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

CIVIL AVIATION

Resolved,

That the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.—[Mr. Onslow.]

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT (COUNTY DURHAM)

1.30 a.m.

Mr. David Watkins: After seven weeks of assiduous application, I am grateful at last to have been lucky in the Ballot and to have the opportunity to raise, even at this late hour, the subject of unemployment in Consett and Stanley, in the area of my constituency.
On 26th June at Question Time I felt obliged, in view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of answers given to my questions by the Minister for Industrial Development, to give notice that I would seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. In reply to my supplementary


question the right hon. Gentleman said that
unemployment dropped from 7·8 per cent. in April to 6·5 per cent. in May and…a further reduction will follow in June."—[Official Report, 26th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 980.]
The reduction in June to which the Minister so confidently looked forward proved to be of negligible proportions—0·3 per cent. to be precise. In July unemployment has risen again by almost a complete percentage point and is now standing at 7·1 per cent. a measure of the continuing level of unemployment in the area. So much for the complacent replies to which I referred at Question Time on that occasion and the broken promises of the Minister.
But, easy though it is to score debating points on such matters, I want to use this Adjournment debate to raise the matter in a much more fundamental way, because the situation in the area is such that if much more drastic solutions than any which have so far been put forward are not applied, the whole area will be facing the prospect of long-term economic decline and distress.
I want to illustrate the current manifestations of the situation. On 25th April the closure was announced of the Medomsley Colliery, bringing 150 redundancies. On 23rd May 120 redundancies were announced at the Morrison Busty Colliery at Annfield Plain. Meanwhile, on 19th May, Ransome, Hoffmann, Pollard Ltd. announced that there would be no fewer than 530 redundancies in the ball bearing factory which is part of its group, also situated at Annfield Plain. On 5th June was announced the closure of the Leadgate engineering works to take place on 30th June, which meant that another 290 jobs disappeared. Between 25th April and 5th June, a period of just seven weeks, almost 1,100 redundancies were announced in the area, a shattering and demoralizing blow to the whole of the Consett and Stanley area.
The closure of the coal mine and the reductions in the labour force of another—indeed, the contraction of the coal industry in the area in general—are accepted by my constituents as sadly inevitable because in the collieries, many of which have been worked over generations, the reserves are becoming worked out. The National Coal Board at least

entered into full consultation with the Durham area of the National Union of Mineworkers on the closure and the reduction in the labour force, but that does not alter the fact that they represent an increase in unemployment in the area.
I want to say something further about Ransome, Hoffman and Pollard Ltd. and Leadgate Engineering because the announcements of the redundancies in those two cases were notable for the lack of consultation with the trade unions. With Ransome, Hoffman and Pollard at Ann-field Plain the old consultations which have taken place have been about ways and means of effecting the reduction in the labour force after the decision, which was a final one, had been taken by the board of the company. The situation with regard to Leadgate Engineering was even worse. The closure was announced on 5th June by the parent company, Stibbe Monk Limited, of Leicester. It burst like a bombshell and even Mr. William Reed, the chief executive responsible for managing the plant there, was made aware of the impending closure of the works only when two directors from Leicester arrived in his office at 9.30 a.m. on 5th June and informed him that the works was to be closed on 30th June.
In their different ways, Ransome, Hoffman and Pollard Ltd. and Stibbe Monk Limited have both received large sums of public money for development purposes. But they appear to have shown scant regard for the public interest in depriving so many members of the public of their means of livelihood. The Under-Secretary ought at least to consider instituting a public inquiry into the management of both concerns. There should be a public inquiry into the way in which the public's money has been used and why the expenditure of public money for the express purpose of producing employment has so signally failed to do so.
I turn next to the steel industry. In this area the steel industry and its future prosperity is absolutely crucial not only to the employment situation but to the whole economy of the area. Consett is a famous steel town. At the Consett works the British Steel Corporation employs over 6,000 workers. The prosperity of that plant is crucial not only to Consett and Stanley but also to a much wider


area overlapping into at least two adjoining parliamentary constituencies, the Blaydon division of County Durham and Durham, North-West.
Over the last year several ancillary plants have been closed or moved away to other steel works. There has been the loss of 50 jobs here and 30 jobs there. These were not large numbers but the constant reduction and closing down of ancillary departments has led to the most acute anxiety on the part of large numbers of my constituents who are employed in the steel industry and acute anxiety among people in general, arising from the fact that the economy of the whole area is very much dependent upon the steel industry.
A few weeks ago I met shop stewards from the Hownsgill plate mill. That is an important part of the works. It is a large modern plate mill which is currently running a long way below capacity. In the light of that and of the general situation of the steel plant, the shop stewards expressed to me their very grave concern about the future. I share their concern, not only because of what I know is happening and what I have observed happening in the steelworks in my constituency but also because of events which have occurred in the House.
During the life of the present Government, there have been two occasions when I have spoken in steel debates and called specifically for the expansion of the steelworks at Consett. Tide first was on 24th May, 1971, and the second on 23rd May this year. On neither occasion did I receive a reply from the Government to the representations I had made; nor was a letter sent to me subsequently. I readily acknowledge that in a debate on an industry like the steel industry, spread as it is throughout the country and on which hon. Members raise matters of constituency interest, the Minister who answers cannot reply to every detailed constituency or regional point; but, at least, I feel that on those two occasions the Ministers concerned should have had the courtesy to write to me with their comments on the points I had put to them.
To sum up, one of the crucial factors in the situation in Consett and Stanley is the great reduction in coal mining which has taken place. Over the years

there has been a devastating contraction. In checking back over some records I find that my predecessor, the late Mr. William Stones, who was a mines inspector before he came to the House, said in a speech in the House on 2nd December, 1965—as events turned out, it was his last speech in the Chamber—that 10 years previously when he had been working as a mines inspector he had inspected 16 pits within the constituency. Today there are only three and in October, when Medomsley closes, there will be only two, and even those two will be much reduced in size compared with what they were in former days. Whereas coal mining formerly employed thousands upon thousands of people in the area, it now employs only hundreds. This has had a devastating effect on our economy and employment prospects.
Side by side with the rundown of the coal industry has gone a series of failures and disappointments in efforts made to provide alternative employment, culminating in the Ransome, Hoffmann and Pollard and Leadgate Engineering situations to which I have already referred. Also, as I say, there has been a steady decline in employment in the steel industry, together with a disconcerting lack of information about the future position of the industry.
Those are the facts and figures of the situation in the area. I shall quote now from a letter I received from a lady constituent just two days ago:
I have my eldest son, 21 years old, made redundant a second time, by the closure of Leadgate Engineering; the first time made redundant by Auto Lifts &amp; Engineering. This was after a four-year apprenticeship in fitting and turning, at 20 years old.
This is how she ends her letter:
But he is not alone, as the dole queue gets longer each day".
That expresses the problem in human terms. Those are the human realities behind the facts and figures which I have outlined.
What Consett and Stanley need is the urgent provision of 2,000 permanent new jobs, not jobs which, as happened in the case of Leadgate Engineering, come in and vanish again within three years of the opening of the plant. We want 2,000 permanent new jobs in a diversity of industries—engineering, electronics, plastics and man-made fibres. I quote those industries as being industries which are


developing and likely expanding industries of the scientific revolution and the application of science to the technology of the times in which we live. In addition, the area needs an additional3,000 jobs to face up to the long-term prospects of the situation. Nothing less than that sort of provision will solve the problems of the area.

1.46 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I congratulate the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on securing this debate about his constituency. He has drawn attention not only to certain general problems affecting the area but to various specific cases affecting particular firms. In reply to him I am faced with two constraints: the need to respect the confidentiality of firms' arrangements and the lack of time in which to explain some fairly complex transactions. But I will do my best in the time available.
The hon. Gentleman has made representations to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industrial Development concerning two firms in his area and there have been approaches from the Stanley Urban District Council to the Prime Minister about redundancies announced in its area and from the AUEW to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Department's regional officers have been keeping me fully informed of the situation concerning the firms mentioned and the general situation in the Stanley area and I have written to the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should meet him and a deputation from Consett and Stanley either in London or when I am in the North East in September. I must make it clear, however, that I could not discuss matters relating to financial assistance for individual firms, which must remain confidential between applicants and the Department. But such a meeting would provide an opportunity for discussion of problems affecting the area which I fully understand arouse deep anxieties among those whose livelihood may be affected. I have not time now to answer all the points the hon. Gentleman has made, but the suggested meeting would provide an opportunity for further discussion.
I fully recognise the need for additional industry in the area to replace

the jobs lost in traditional industries, especially coal mining. I am glad to note that at the Medomsley pit, although 150 redundancies are involved, only 65 men will be redundant because 85 will be offered transfer to continuing collieries. Twenty will be retained on salvage work. Most of them will be over 55 years of age and will benefit from the redundant miners' payment scheme. Nevertheless the problem of the rundown in the coal industry existed at the time of the previous Administration which found it necessary to declare the district a special development area in November 1967. The Government and I were gravely concerned to hear of the number of redundancies recently announced in North-West Durham.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development on 26th June. On that occasion my right hon. Friend pointed out our belief that the measures we propose in the Industry Bill will go a long way to reduce unemployment in this area, as elsewhere.
We fully recognise that it will take time for new or existing firms to formulate and put into effect expansion plans. We know that people locally will say, with justification, that this will not help them here and now when redundancies have been declared, but what we want to achieve is stable and long-term growth in areas which have suffered for too long. Previous regional measures have had some effect in the area already, but we believe that our new proposals will prove very much more effective.
On the question of Leadgate Engineering Ltd., I am aware of the deep concern aroused by the announcement of the decision to close the factory near Consett. My officials have had discussions with the company as well as with union representatives and the local authorities concerned. I also understand that the Department of Employment has so far placed some 80 of the employees affected but, of course, opposition has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others to the firm's plans, partly on the ground that the company had received financial assistance to establish its project at Consett.
It has not been our practice to make available details of the assistance offered to individual applicants under the Local


Employment Acts, but if a loan were made it would be repayable in full if the borrower ceased or threatened to cease to carry on the undertaking. Building grants are subject to a right of recovery provision in certain cases, including the case where the grantee ceases to carry on the stipulated undertaking within a five-year period. Operational grants are not subject to repayment conditions but are subject to review if there is a material change in the project.
The other firm the hon. Member referred to was Ransome, Hoffman and Pollard. I know that the announcement of over 500 redundancies at Annfield Plain created very serious anxieties in the area but I understand—and the hon Gentleman referred to this—that following discussions with the unions a large proportion, I believe some 400, of the people concerned have accepted voluntary redundancy and that there will be further discussions after the holiday period about the position of the remaining 130. Nevertheless, I accept that this is a most regrettable job loss to the area. Of course, it is for the company to decide on the optimum size of its work force. We—the Government—cannot force it to manufacture products for which there is no demand or to employ more people than it needs to produce what it can sell.
However, the Government recognise the value and importance of the British ball and roller bearings industry. As the House will know, we have taken action which should attack the root causes of the industry's problem. The measures we have recently taken to improve demand and increase investment in the economy as a whole, including the reduction in corporation tax, free depreciation allowances and increased regional assistance, are aimed at stimulating demand for both capital and consumer goods, and they should lead to an increase in orders for ball bearings which are used in a wide variety of those goods. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House on 5th June, during his visit to Japan he raised with Japanese Ministers the question of ball bearings and forcefully brought to their attention the particular problems of the bearing industry. It has been agreed that a meeting of officials should take place in early September to review the progress made by the

Japanese by that time. The Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers Association met its Japanese counterparts on 19th June and contact by correspondence, I understand, is continuing.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important question of the future of steel in his area. I can understand his impatience and that of his constituents to know the future in this respect. I am well aware of the important position steel holds in employment in the area.
Decisions on investment at individual works are entirely the responsibility of the British Steel Corporation. The Government's powers are limited to approval of the corporation's general programme of investment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend, the Minister for Industry said in the House on 8th May that the corporation expects to be able to make firm strategic decisions later in the year. The Government will be closely involved in these decisions, particularly the siting of major steel developments, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that regional policy factors will be fully taken into account.
I must emphasise generally that there are now massive financial inducements to encourage industry to set up in areas where development is needed and the industrial development certificate control provides a discouragement against expansions in over-crowded areas.
The Department of Trade and Industry, which is always on the look-out for firms to attract to assisted areas, bears in mind the particular incentive provided by the availability of skilled workers in an area where redundancies or closures have taken place as a factor to bring to the attention of firms with mobile projects.
I was moved by the letter which the hon. Member very properly read from his constituent concerning her son who was out of work, but one must take comfort from the fact that within an expanding economy, which we intend to achieve, the fact that there are bright and enthusiastic young men and an able and skilled work force can be a great attraction to industrialists and industries, from both home and abroad, which want to locate in our assisted areas.
Although a great deal remains to be done, we should not lose sight of the contribution of new firms to the area.


Fourteen have been located in North-West Durham during the last five or six years, including Ever Ready, Patchogue Plymouth and Forward Textiles.
The particular need now is for new firms employing male labour. There is a Department of Trade and Industry advance factory of 15.000 sq. ft. at Consett currently available and construction will start shortly on a new advance factory at Stanley. The Department will make particular efforts to find occupants for these factories who will provide male jobs. Even in the last 18 months, when industry generally has not been in an expansive frame of mind, we have suggested North-West Durham as a location to 92 firms. 28 of which followed up our suggestion by visiting the area to see for themselves. We hope that the assistance becoming available under the Industry Bill will

encourage these firms to bring out their expansion plans for reassessment and that other firms from outside the area, as well as those already there, will recognise the quickening of industrial activity and react to it.
Although I accept entirely that the hon. Member's constituency and area have had very difficult times and still have them, they should be of good heart and I believe that they have a great deal to offer to industry. The quality of the available work force is something which, coupled with the dramatic new incentives we as a Government are offering to industry, can ensure that Consett and Stanley canenjoy a bright economic future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock